Court Opinion

ID: 9392861
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-08 15:07:05.343441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:49.534191
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Beasley, 2023-Ohio-1521.]

                                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                            TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                              CLERMONT COUNTY

 STATE OF OHIO,                                      :

        Appellee,                                    :     CASE NO. CA2022-09-047

                                                     :          OPINION
     - vs -                                                      5/8/2023
                                                     :

 CHRISTIAN ANTHONY BEASLEY,                          :

        Appellant.                                   :

    CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLERMONT COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                         Case No. 2021-CR-00675

Mark J. Tekulve, Clermont County Prosecuting Attorney, and Nicholas Horton, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Roger W. Kirk, for appellant.

        PIPER, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Christian Beasley, was indicted on one count of aggravated murder

with firearm specifications, one count of murder with firearm specifications, conspiracy to

commit murder, tampering with evidence, and gross abuse of a corpse. The charges were

based upon claims that Beasley murdered Robert Farrell in an alleged murder-for-hire plot
                                                                          Clermont CA2022-09-047

involving Farrell's former friend, Keyanta Gardner.1

                                        Summary of Facts

       {¶2}    On June 23, 2022, Beasley pled guilty to one count of aggravated murder with

a firearm specification and one count of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder. In

exchange, the state agreed to dismiss the remaining counts and specifications. At the plea

hearing, the assistant prosecutor summarized the evidence it intended to present at trial.

               [O]n July 6th, 2021, Keyanta Gardner picked up the Defendant,
               Christian "Boog" Beasley from the Cincinnati area, and the two
               of them drove [to] New Richmond. Once in New Richmond, the
               two picked up the victim, Bobby Farrell Jr., from his residence.

               The victim and both codefendants drove for a short time,
               smoking marijuana together, when the Defendant shot the
               victim twice in the head inside Gardner's vehicle.

               During the course of the investigation, BCI agents discovered
               that on July 3rd, 2021, there were multiple calls between
               Gardner and the Defendant. Eight calls, to be exact. Agents
               also obtained Gardner's bank records, which showed that on
               July 4th of 2021, at approximately 11:47 a.m., Keyanta Gardner
               withdrew $500 from an ATM located at what used to be a
               Thorton's [sic] located at 4360 Newbury Street, just off of State
               Route 32.

               Gardner then drove to InTown Suites in the Colerain, Cincinnati,
               Ohio area, where the Defendant was residing. Surveillance
               video obtained from InTown Suites captured Gardner arriving at
               approximately 12:34 p.m.

               Thirty minutes later, the Defendant is seen exiting InTown
               Suites and entering Gardner's vehicle, while his young son
               remains outside in the parking lot. The Defendant was in the
               vehicle for only three to four minutes, just long enough for the
               Defendant to receive advance payment for the murder of Bobby
               Farrell Jr., as the two had planned.

                       ***

               Later [on the evening of July 5, 2021], there are multiple calls

1. During the investigation into Farrell's murder, Beasley's accomplice, Gardner, admitted that he hired
Beasley to murder Farrell. Gardner was charged and ultimately pled guilty to aggravated murder. State v.
Gardner, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2021-12-074, 2022-Ohio-2725.

                                                 -2-
                                                                  Clermont CA2022-09-047

              between the Defendant and Gardner. Dispersed in between the
              communication between the Defendant and Gardner, there
              were also multiple messages between the victim and Gardner,
              during which time Gardner's attempting to get Bobby to meet up
              with him. That evening, Gardner was unsuccessful in getting
              Bobby out for the night.

              However, on July 6th, additional surveillance video obtained
              from InTown Suites shows Gardner picking up the Defendant at
              approximately 4:38 p.m. After leaving InTown Suites and while
              on the way to commit the murder, the Defendant again texts the
              firearm owner at approximately 4:53 p.m. and asks, "When you
              shot that trap, you had to pull the hammer back or just pull the
              trigger?"

              By 5:38 p.m., Bobby is seen leaving his house on a Ring
              doorbell camera video with Gardner, and then enters Gardner's
              vehicle, where the Defendant lie[s] in wait. The Defendant and
              Gardner then drive around New Richmond with Bobby, and the
              Defendant shoots Bobby twice in the left side of the head, while
              inside Gardner's vehicle. Both the defendant and Gardner then
              dump Bobby's body on the side of State Route 222 in New
              Richmond.

When asked by the trial court if what the assistant prosecutor read was true, Beasley replied

"Yes, sir."

       {¶3}   At sentencing, Beasley's counsel claimed that Beasley was socially

challenged with impaired judgment and committed the offense because he "wanted to help

somebody else out." On his own behalf, Beasley stated that he knew "what I did was wrong"

and that "what I did was evil." He further stated that he was sorry and that the devil had

used him that day. Before announcing the sentence, the trial court stated that this crime

was "the most cruel, calculated execution of a human being" it had seen. Applying the

sentencing factors, the trial court sentenced Beasley to life without parole for aggravated

murder, a consecutive term of five years for the firearm specification, and 11 to 16 and one-

half years prison for conspiracy to commit aggravated murder. Beasley timely appeals,

raising three assignments of error for review.

                                            -3-
                                                                 Clermont CA2022-09-047

                                   Issues on Appeal

      {¶4}   Assignment of Error No. 1:

      {¶5}   [THE] TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY

IMPOSING A SENTENCE ON CHRISTIAN BEASLEY OF LIFE WITHOUT THE

POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION

16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.

      {¶6}   Assignment of Error No. 2:

      {¶7}   THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO BEASLEY'S PREJUDICE BY IMPOSING A

LIFE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE SENTENCE FOR HIS AGGRAVATED

MURDER WHEN SUCH SENTENCE VIOLATED THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT (CRUEL

AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT), FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT (DUE PROCESS) AND

ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AS THE MOST SEVERE NON[-

]CAPITAL SENTENCE WHICH INFLICTED PUNISHMENT AND WAS IRRATIONALLY

AND ARBITRARILY IMPOSED.

      {¶8}   Beasley's first and second assignments of error both raise allegations of cruel

and unusual punishment and will be combined for the purposes of discussion. The Eighth

Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "[e]xcessive bail shall not be

required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The

amendment applies to the states pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment. State v. Accorinti,

12th Dist. Butler Nos. CA2012-10-205 and CA2012-11-221, 2013-Ohio-4429, ¶ 20, citing

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 82 S.Ct. 1417 (1962). Accord Article I, Section 9,

Ohio Constitution.

                           Constitutionality of R.C. 2953.08

      {¶9}   In his first assignment of error, Beasley argues that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3), which

                                           -4-
                                                                                  Clermont CA2022-09-047

prohibits an intermediate level of appellate review of sentences imposed for murder and

aggravated murder, violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution. According to that section, "a

sentence imposed for aggravated murder or murder pursuant to sections 2929.02 to

2929.06 of the Revised Code is not subject to review under this section." R.C.

2953.08(D)(3).2

        {¶10} Beasley argues that the trial court failed to properly consider the sentencing

factors when it imposed the sentence of life without the possibility of parole. 3 Accordingly,

because R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not permit an intermediate level of appellate review of

his sentence for aggravated murder, Beasley claims that he is "deprived of his right to have

his [sentence] meaningfully reviewed by this Court."4

        {¶11} However, this court has previously held that appellate review of a sentence is

not a "constitutional right" because the right of such review is strictly conferred by statute.

State v. Grevious, 12th Dist. CA2018-05-093, 2019-Ohio-1932, ¶ 68; State v. Gardner, 12th

Dist. Clermont No. CA2021-12-074, 2022-Ohio-2725, ¶ 8. Therefore, this court and our

2. As in State v. Grevious, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4361, Beasley does not differentiate between a facial
and an as-applied challenge to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3). The supreme court in Grevious concluded that because
Grevious could not establish an as-applied violation of his rights, his facial challenge to R.C. 2953.08(D)(3)
also failed. Grevious at ¶ 37, 39, citing Diaz v. Paterson, 547 F.3d 88, 101 (2d Cir.2008) ("a defendant who
fails to demonstrate that a challenged law is unconstitutional as applied to him has 'necessarily fail[ed] to state
a facial challenge, which requires [him] to establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the statute
would be valid'"). Such is the same result in the case at bar.

3. We also note that this court does not independently weigh the evidence in the record to substitute the
judgment of the trial court with respect to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. State v. Orender, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2021-12-149, 2022-Ohio-2823, ¶ 15, citing State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42.
Here, the trial court stated that it had considered the purposes and principle of sentencing contained in R.C.
2929.11 and 2929.12.

4. Beasley conceded that this court has previously rejected this issue and identified his argument as having
previously been raised by his accomplice, Gardner. He further agreed that this issue was pending in the
supreme court at the time of briefing. Therefore, Beasley acknowledged that he is raising this issue for the
purpose of preserving his appellate and postconviction rights. Following the submission of the parties' briefs,
the supreme court issued its decision in State v. Grevious, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4361, finding that R.C.
2953.08(D)(3) was not unconstitutional.

                                                      -5-
                                                                                  Clermont CA2022-09-047

sister districts have determined that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is constitutional and does not

constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at ¶ 8; State v. Thomas, 11th Dist. Lake No.

2019-L-085, 2020-Ohio-4635, ¶ 88 ("If there is no constitutional right to appellate review of

a criminal sentence, it makes little sense to assert the absence of such an entitlement is

unconstitutional"). State v. Blair, 4th Dist. Athens No. 18CA24, 2019-Ohio-2768, ¶ 38; State

v. Nelson, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2021CA00112, 2022-Ohio-4170, ¶ 55.

        {¶12} The Ohio Supreme Court recently affirmed the portion of this court's decision

in Grevious relating to the constitutionality of R.C. 2953.08(D)(3). State v. Grevious, Slip

Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4361, ¶ 1. Therein, the supreme court specifically held that R.C.

2953.08 does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibitions against cruel and unusual

punishment. Id. at ¶ 40-41. Moreover, the supreme court specifically refuted the claims

made by the defendant in Grevious that R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) amounts to cruel and unusual

punishment "by denying any appellate review."5 Id. at ¶ 41. While R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does

not permit appellate sentencing review, it does not preclude an appeal of a sentence for

aggravated murder or murder which is based on other grounds. Id. at ¶ 41, citing State v.

Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309, 2020-Ohio-6803.

        {¶13} Therefore, in both Patrick and Grevious, the supreme court stated that an

offender can appeal a criminal sentence on constitutional grounds or "via other avenues

not precluded under R.C. 2953.08." Patrick at ¶ 17, 22; Grevious, 2022-Ohio-4361 at ¶ 41.

Accordingly, Beasley's narrow argument concerning the constitutionality of R.C.

2953.08(D)(3) raised in his first assignment of error is without merit. Beasley's sentence is

not unconstitutional merely because R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) does not provide for an

5. This court similarly questioned the defendant's argument in Gardner. In Gardner, the defendant claimed
that it was not the sentence of life without the possibility of parole that was constitutionally infirm, but rather
the inability to challenge the sentence itself that rendered the punishment cruel and unusual. State v. Gardner,
12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2021-12-024, 2022-Ohio-2725, ¶ 8, fn. 3.

                                                      -6-
                                                                  Clermont CA2022-09-047

intermediate review of the sentence imposed for aggravated murder.            Nevertheless,

pursuant to Patrick and Grevious, we now consider Beasley's challenge to his aggravated

murder sentence on constitutional grounds.

                   Constitutional Challenge to the Sentence Imposed

       {¶14} In his second assignment of error, Beasley argues that his sentence of life

without the possibility of parole is unconstitutional and was "irrationally and arbitrarily

imposed." Beasley contends that his sentence is "grossly disproportionate to the crime,"

considering factors such as his age, remorse, and lack of significant prior criminal history.

He argues that he presented mitigating factors, such as his "law-abiding life before [his]

conviction," a loving family, and expression of genuine remorse that support his claim that

his prison sentence is "irrational and arbitrary."

       {¶15} "A key component of the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual

punishment is the 'precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and

proportioned to [the] offense.'" State v. Moore, 149 Ohio St.3d 557, 2016-Ohio-8288, ¶ 31,

quoting Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367, 30 S.Ct. 544 (1910). "Protection

against disproportionate punishment is the central substantive guarantee of the Eighth

Amendment." Id., citing Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190, 206, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016).

       {¶16} "'It is generally accepted that punishments which are prohibited by the Eighth

Amendment are limited to torture or other barbarous punishments, degrading punishments

unknown at common law, and punishments which are so disproportionate to the offense as

to shock the moral sense of the community.'" State v. Fraley, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2021-

10-131, 2022-Ohio-3270, ¶ 28, quoting McDougle v. Maxwell, 1 Ohio St.2d 68, 69 (1964).

A sentence that falls within statutory limitations is not excessive and does not violate the

constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Rowland, 12th

Dist. Warren No. CA2019-08-084, 2020-Ohio-2984, ¶ 63.

                                              -7-
                                                                  Clermont CA2022-09-047

      {¶17} Upon review of the record, we find Beasley's sentence was within the

permitted statutory range, was neither excessive nor contrary to law, and did not amount to

cruel and unusual punishment. Life without parole is specifically provided as a potential

punishment for aggravated murder. R.C. 2929.03(A)(1). See Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S.

137, 157, 107 S.Ct. 1676 (1987) ("the Eighth Amendment permits the State to exact the

death penalty after a careful weighing of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances").

In the present case, Beasley was the principal offender of this aggravated murder. Beasley

obtained a firearm, inquired about how the firearm functioned, and agreed to murder the

victim in exchange for $500. Beasley meticulously plotted with Gardner to lure the victim

into their trap and executed the plan with cold precision. Beasley shot Farrell twice in the

head at close range, killing him, and then tossed the body out on the side of the road. The

trial court considered the arguments offered in mitigation but found Beasley's crime was the

most serious form of the offense that warranted the most serious punishment. As stated by

the trial court, this was "without a doubt, the most cruel, calculated execution of a human

being [it had] ever seen." Based upon review of the record, we find Beasley's sentence is

not cruel or unusual and his second assignment of error is without merit. Accordingly,

Beasley's first and second assignments of error are overruled.

      {¶18} Assignment of Error No. 3:

      {¶19} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO MAKE THE REAGAN-TOKES

NOTIFICATIONS FROM OHIO REVISED CODE §2929.19(B)(2)(c) AT THE SENTENCING

HEARING REGARDING COUNT 3 ONLY, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER.

      {¶20} In his third assignment of error, Beasley argues the trial court erred by failing

to provide notifications provided in the Reagan Tokes Law regarding his sentence for

conspiracy to commit aggravated murder. The state concedes the error but argues that it

is not a reversible error because the trial court should have merged the sentence for

                                           -8-
                                                                  Clermont CA2022-09-047

conspiracy with the aggravated murder offense. In his reply brief, Beasley agreed with the

state.

         {¶21} After reviewing the record, we agree that Beasley's sentence for conspiracy

to commit aggravated murder should have merged. Pursuant to R.C. 2923.01(G), "[w]hen

a person is convicted of committing * * * a specific offense * * * the person shall not be

convicted of conspiracy involving the same offense." In other words, "R.C. 2923.01(G)

merges the conspiracy offense, due to its inchoate nature, into the substantive offenses

which are the object of the conspiracy." State v. Marian, 62 Ohio St.2d 250, 255 (1980);

State v. Jones, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-18-013, 2019-Ohio-301, ¶ 195.

         {¶22} In the present case, both Beasley and the state agree that Beasley's sentence

for conspiracy to commit aggravated murder should have merged and therefore his

sentence on that count should be vacated. We agree and therefore vacate Beasley's

sentence for conspiracy to commit aggravated murder. Since Beasley's sentence for

conspiracy to commit aggravated murder is vacated, his argument with respect to the

Reagan Tokes Law notifications is now moot. We accordingly find Beasley's assignment

of error well-taken and sustained to the extent that his sentence for conspiracy to commit

aggravated murder is vacated.

         {¶23} Judgment affirmed as modified.

         S. POWELL P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.

                                             -9-