Court Opinion

ID: 9384995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 18:06:59.344624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:58.200797
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Fisher, 2023-Ohio-1131.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                    MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 STATE OF OHIO                                  JUDGES:
                                                Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                     Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                                Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
 -vs-
                                                Case No. CT2022-0024
 CHASE FISHER

          Defendant-Appellant                   OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                      Appeal from the Muskingum County Court
                                                of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2021-
                                                0601

 JUDGMENT:                                      Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                        April 3, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee                         For Defendant-Appellant

 RONALD WELCH                                   APRIL F. CAMPBELL
 Prosecuting Attorney                           Campbell Law, LLC
 Muskingum County, Ohio                         545 Metro Place South – Suite #100
                                                Dublin, Ohio 43-17
 JOHN CONNOR DEVER
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
 Muskingum County, Ohio
 27 North Fifth Street
 P.O. Box 189
 Zanesville, Ohio 43702
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0024                                                    2

Hoffman, J.
       {¶1}    Defendant-appellant Chase Fisher appeals the judgment entered by the

Muskingum County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of guilty to

one count of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance (R.C.

2907.323(A)(1)) and one count of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles (R.C.

2907.31(A)(1)), and sentencing him to an aggregate prison term of four to six years

incarceration. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}    Appellant was employed as a sports broadcaster by a local news station,

WHIZ. Through his employment, he interacted with female high school students while

covering sporting events. Appellant began interacting with the female victim in this case

on social media when she was fifteen years old. Appellant eventually asked the victim to

be his “sugar baby.” Tr. (plea) 14. The victim began to send Appellant nude photographs

of herself showing her vagina, breasts, and buttocks.        Appellant sent the victim a

photograph of his penis. Appellant sent ten payments to the victim through Venmo,

totaling $431.70. Appellant discussed the victim’s mental health issues with her, and

when she tried to cut off communication with Appellant, he told the victim he was going

to kill himself.

       {¶3}    Appellant was indicted by the Muskingum County Grand Jury with two

counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and two counts of disseminating

matter harmful to juveniles. Appellant entered guilty pleas to one count of illegal use of a

minor in nudity-oriented material and one count of disseminating matter harmful to

juveniles, and the State entered a nolle prosequi of the remaining two charges. The trial

court convicted Appellant following his pleas of guilty, and sentenced Appellant to four to
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0024                                                    3

six years incarceration for illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and to twelve

months incarceration for disseminating matter harmful to juveniles, to be served

concurrently for an aggregate term of four to six years incarceration. It is from the March

23, 2022 judgment of the trial court Appellant prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:

              I. FISHER’S SENTENCES SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE

       TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE HE FAILED TO

       OBJECT      TO     FISHER’S       INDETERMINATE         SENTENCES         AS

       UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

              II. FISHER’S SENTENCE SHOULD BE REVERSED, BECAUSE IT

       WAS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO ANOTHER SIMILARLY

       SITUATED OFFENDER, AND BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO

       CONSIDER HIS REHABILITATION.

              III. FISHER’S SENTENCE UNDER THE REAGAN TOKES ACT IS

       UNCONSTITUTIONAL.          THUS, HIS SENTENCE FOR THE SECOND-

       DEGREE FELONY OFFENSE SHOULD BE REVERSED.

                                                I.

       {¶4}   In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to object to the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Act, under

which he was sentenced.

       {¶5}   A properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. State v. Hamblin, 37

Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). Therefore, in order to prevail on a claim of
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0024                                                    4

ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must show counsel's performance fell below

an objective standard of reasonable representation and but for counsel’s error, the result

of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,

104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674(1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d

373 (1989). In other words, Appellant must show counsel’s conduct so undermined the

proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having

produced a just result. Id.

       {¶6}   Because this Court has previously found the Reagan Tokes Act is

constitutional, Appellant has not demonstrated a reasonable probability of a change in

the outcome had counsel raised the issue in the trial court.           See, e.g., State v.

Householder, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2021-0026, 2022-Ohio-1542, 2022 WL

1439978.

       {¶7}   The first assignment of error is overruled.

                                                II.

       {¶8}   In his second assignment of error, Appellant argues his sentence was

grossly disproportionate to another similarly situated offender in violation of R.C.

2929.11(B), and the trial court failed to consider the concept of rehabilitation in imposing

sentence in violation of R.C. 2929.11(A).

       {¶9}   We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.

2953.08. State v. Roberts, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2020 CA 0030, 2020-Ohio-6722, ¶13,

citing State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231. R.C.

2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence

and remand for sentencing where we clearly and convincingly find either the record does
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0024                                                     5

not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.13(B) or (D),

2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2929.20(l), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law. Id.,

citing State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659.

       {¶10} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes

and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and

recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12. State v. Hodges, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99511, 2013-

Ohio-5025, ¶ 7.

       {¶11} “The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from

future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the

effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court

determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state

or local government resources.” R.C. 2929.11(A). To achieve these purposes, the

sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the

offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution

to the victim of the offense, the public, or both. Id. Further, the sentence imposed shall be

“commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and

its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes by

similar offenders.” R.C. 2929.11(B).

       {¶12} Nothing in R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) permits this Court to independently weigh

the evidence in the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court to

determine a sentence which best reflects compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and R.C.

2929.12. State v. Jones, 1163 Ohio St.3d 242, 69 N.E.3d 649, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42.

Instead, we may only determine if the sentence is contrary to law.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0024                                                     6

       {¶13} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial

court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed

in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant

within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2020 CA

00057, 2021-Ohio-1512, 2021 WL 1714216, ¶¶ 14-16 quoting State v. Dinka, 12th Dist.

Warren Nos. CA2019-03-022 & CA2019-03-026, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36.

       {¶14} Appellant argues he was a first-time offender who was seeking counseling

on his own prior to sentencing, and the trial court did not consider the need for

rehabilitating him in imposing the sentence in the instant case. The trial court stated in

the sentencing entry it had considered the principles and purposes of sentencing pursuant

to R.C. 2929.11. Appellant does not dispute the sentence was within the statutory range

and post release control was properly imposed. Pursuant to Jones, supra, we may not

independently weigh the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court

to determine a sentence which best reflects the purpose of rehabilitation.

       {¶15} Appellant also argues his sentence is grossly disproportionate to a two-year

sentence imposed in a case in which a female teacher engaged in a sexual relationship

with a 17-year-old male student.       R.C. 2929.11(B) provides the sentence shall be

consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes on similar offenders. We find

Appellant’s comparison to the case involving the teacher is not a comparison to a similar

crime on a similar offender, as the offenses involved are not the same, and are

criminalized in different ways by the legislature, with different applicable sentences. The

record does not demonstrate any of the specific facts underlying the teacher’s case other

than the age of the victim, and does not reflect the identity of the exact crime of which she
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0024                                                 7

was convicted. Appellant argued to the trial court he believed a teacher having sexual

relations with a student was a “worse offense” than receiving nude pictures from a minor;

however, he did not demonstrate the offenses were legally similar.

      {¶16} The second assignment of error is overruled.

                                           III.

      {¶17} In his third assignment of error, Appellant argues the Reagan Tokes Act,

under which he was sentenced, is unconstitutional. For the reasons stated in this Court's

opinion in Householder, supra, we find the Reagan Tokes Act is constitutional.

      {¶18} The third assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Muskingum

County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur