Court Opinion

ID: 9964341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-29 18:10:56.755124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:19.876966
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Blosser, 2024-Ohio-1649.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NOS. 2023-P-0070
                                                           2023-P-0071
                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                 Criminal Appeals from the
        - vs -                                   Court of Common Pleas

ZACHARY D. BLOSSER,
                                                 Trial Court Nos. 2021 CR 00239
                 Defendant-Appellant.                             2022 CR 00097

                                              OPINION

                                    Decided: April 29, 2024
                             Judgment: Affirmed in part and remanded

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, and Kristina K. Reilly, Assistant
Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Sean P. Martin, 113 North Chestnut Street, Suite A, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For
Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Zachary D. Blosser, appeals the sentences imposed on

Involuntary Manslaughter with a firearm specification, a first-degree felony, and

Aggravated Assault, a fourth-degree felony, by the Portage County Court of Common

Pleas. For the following reasons, we affirm.

        {¶2}     On March 18, 2021, in Case No. 2021 CR 00239, the Portage County Grand

Jury returned a six-count indictment charging appellant with two counts of Murder,

unclassified felonies, with a firearm specifications, in violation of R.C. 2903.02, R.C.

2929.02, R.C. 2929.14(D) and R.C. 2941.145 (Counts 1 and 2); two counts of Felonious
Assault, second degree felonies, with firearm specifications, in violation of R.C. 2903.11,

R.C. 292914(D), and R.C. 2941.145 (Counts 3 and 4); Tampering with Evidence, a third-

degree felony, in violation of R.C.2921.12 (Count 5); and Safe Cracking, a fourth-degree

felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.31 (Count 6). On March 19, 2021, appellant pleaded not

guilty to the charges at arraignment and bond was set at $2,000,000 cash or surety.

       {¶3}   On January 28, 2022, in Case No. 2022 CR 00097, the Portage County

Grand Jury returned an indictment charging appellant with Attempted Felonious Assault,

a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.11. Appellant pleaded not

guilty to the charge at arraignment. Bond was set at $50,000, 10% or cash or surety.

       {¶4}   After the exchange of routine pretrial motions, on July 5, 2023, appellant

appeared with counsel, waived his rights, and entered guilty plea to an amended

indictment of Involuntary Manslaughter, a first-degree felony, with a firearm specification,

in violation of R.C. 2903.04 (A) and (C), R.C. 292914, and R.C. 2941.145 in Case No.

2021 CV 00239. As a result of the plea, the State dismissed the remaining counts of the

indictment in Case No. 2021 CR 00239. A presentence investigation (“PSI”) was ordered

and bond was continued.

       {¶5}   At the same hearing, appellant also entered a guilty plea to an amended

indictment of Aggravated Assault, a fourth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2903.12 in

Case No. 2022 CR 00097. The plea in the later case contained a jointly recommended

sentence of 18 months imprisonment on the aggravated assault to run concurrently to the

sentence on the involuntary manslaughter charge to be determined after the PSI was

completed.

                                             2

Case Nos. 2023-P-0070, 2023-P-0071
       {¶6}    On September 1, 2023, appellant was sentenced in both cases in a single

judgment entry. On the Involuntary Manslaughter conviction in Case No. 2021 CR 00239,

the trial court sentenced appellant to an indefinite term of imprisonment of 9 years to 13

1/2 years which was ordered to be served consecutively to a three-year prison term on

the firearm specification. On the Aggravated Assault conviction in Case No. 2022 CR

00097, the trial court sentenced appellant to a prison term of 18 months and ordered that

sentence to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in Case No. 2021 CR

00239. In the sentencing entry, the trial court calculated appellant’s aggregate prison term

as 12 to 13 1/2 years.1

       {¶7}    Appellant timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error for

review: “The trial court did not consider the sentencing factors found in R.C. 2929.12.”

       {¶8}    We review felony sentencing pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which

provides:

               The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise
               modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may
               vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing
               court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for
               review is not whether the sentencing court abused its
               discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized
               by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the
               following:

               (a)    That the record does not support the sentencing court's
               findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division
               (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section
               2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;

               (b)     That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.

1. This appears to be an incorrect calculation of the aggregate sentence. The three-year firearm
specification will be served prior to and consecutive to the nine to 13 1/2 year sentence, making the
aggregate term 12 to 16 1/2 years.
                                                 3

Case Nos. 2023-P-0070, 2023-P-0071
       {¶9}   “A sentence is contrary to law when it is ‘in violation of statute or legal

regulations’ * * *.” State v. Meeks, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2022-A-0060, 2023-Ohio-988,

¶ 11, quoting State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶

34. If a sentence falls outside the statutory range for the offense, “or if the trial court fails

to consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and

the sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12,” the sentence is contrary to law. State v.

Shannon, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2020-T-0020, 2021-Ohio-789, ¶ 11, quoting State v.

Brown, 2017-Ohio-8416, 99 N.E.3d 1135, ¶ 74 (2d Dist.); see also State v. Wilson, 11th

Lake No. 2017-L-028, 2017-Ohio-7127, ¶ 18.

       {¶10} Appellant alleges that “[t]here is no point where the Trial Court makes any

reference, or even a ‘rote recitation’ of the statutory factors set forth in 2929.12 anywhere

in the sentencing hearing on September 1, 2023.”

       {¶11} “[T]his court has frequently noted that ‘even though a trial court is required

to consider the R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 factors, it is not required to make specific

findings on the record to comport with its statutory obligations.’” State v. Lamb, 11th Dist.

Portage No. 2022-P-0084, 2023-Ohio-2834, ¶ 10, quoting Shannon at ¶ 17. Moreover,

              It is well-established that “consideration of the appropriate
              factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 can be presumed unless the
              defendant affirmatively shows to the contrary.” State v.
              Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1,
              ¶ 243. A trial court's silence regarding the purposes of felony
              sentencing and/or the seriousness and recidivism factors is
              not sufficient to affirmatively demonstrate that the court did not
              comply with the statutes. State v. Adams, 37 Ohio St.3d 295,
              525 N.E.2d 1361 (1988), paragraph three of the syllabus (“[a]
              silent record raises the presumption that a trial court
              considered the factors contained in R.C. 2929.12”); State v.
              Cozzone, 2018-Ohio-2249, 114 N.E.3d 601, ¶ 19 (11th Dist.)
              (“[t]he trial court did not explicitly state it considered R.C.
              2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 when it imposed appellant's
                                               4

Case Nos. 2023-P-0070, 2023-P-0071
              sentence; however, we presume a trial court considered R.C.
              2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 from a silent record”).

Lamb, at ¶ 11 quoting, State v. Claar, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2020-P-0058, 2021-Ohio-

2180, ¶ 11.

       {¶12} During the sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated that it reviewed the

PSI, the sentencing memorandum, and the victim impact statements from members of

the victim’s family. The trial court heard arguments from counsel and statements from

appellant and appellant’s sister. The trial court also noted that it received several letters

from appellant’s family members. The trial court then concluded that “I am going to find

that you certainly are not amenable to community control sanctions and that a prison

sentence is consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing.” The trial court

recognized that while appellant has taken responsibility for his involvement in the death

of the victim, he did take efforts to cover up his actions by lying about his involvement

during the initial stages of the investigation and by removing the magazine and placing it

inside the safe immediately after the shooting. The trial court also discussed appellant’s

juvenile record as contained in the PSI.

       {¶13} The sentencing entry states:

              The Court considered the purpose of felony sentencing which
              is to protect the public from future crimes by the Defendant
              and to punish the Defendant using the minimum sanctions
              that the Court determines to accomplish those purposes
              without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local
              government resources.

              The Court also considered the need for incapacitating the
              Defendant, deterring the Defendant and others from future
              crime, rehabilitating the Defendant, making restitution to the
              victim of the offense, the public or both.

                                             5

Case Nos. 2023-P-0070, 2023-P-0071
              The Court also considered the evidence presented by
              counsel, oral statements, any victim impact statements, the
              Pre-Sentence Report, and the Defendant’s statement.

       {¶14} While the trial court did not mention R.C. 2929.11 or R.C. 2929.12,

specifically, we presume that the trial court considered these mandatory statutory

provisions. Upon review of the record in this case, the record supports the trial court’s

sentencing determination. The individually imposed sentences were within the statutory

guidelines, and appellant has not affirmatively demonstrated that the trial court failed to

comply with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error

is without merit.

       {¶15} While we find appellant’s assignment of error to be meritless, we remand

this matter to the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry correcting the aggregate prison

term. The judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is otherwise affirmed.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

MATT LYNCH, J.,

concur.

                                             6

Case Nos. 2023-P-0070, 2023-P-0071