Court Opinion

ID: 9889992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 20:09:15.44006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.221974
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Preist, 2023-Ohio-3702.]

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                       LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 STATE OF OHIO                                   JUDGES:
                                                 Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                      Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                                 Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
 -vs-
                                                 Case No. 2023 CA 00012
 GLENN J. PRIEST

          Defendant-Appellant                    OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS:                       Appeal from the Licking County Court of
                                                 Common Pleas, Case No. 2018 CR 00321

 JUDGMENT:                                       Affirmed

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                         October 11, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

 For Plaintiff-Appellee                          For Defendant-Appellant

 JENNY WELLS                                     BRIAN A. SMITH
 Licking County Prosecuting Attorney             123 S. Miller Road – Suite #250
                                                 Akron, Ohio 44333
 KENNETH W. OSWALT
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
 20 S. Second Street – 4th Floor
 Newark, Ohio 43055
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00012                                                      2

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

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

involuntary manslaughter (R.C. 2903.04(A)), felonious assault with a firearm specification

(R.C. 2941.145(A)), having weapons under disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)), and

improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle (R.C. 2923.16(B)) and sentencing him to

an aggregate term of twenty years incarceration. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.

                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

       {¶2}   On May 11, 2018, Newark police were dispatched to an address on

Hancock Street for a report of shots fired. Upon arrival police located a deceased white

male, later identified as Jessie Moffitt, Sr. Upon investigation, police learned Moffitt went

to the Hancock Street address to retrieve a cell phone. At the residence, a verbal

altercation ensued between Moffitt and a third party. During the altercation, Appellant

came up from the basement and shot and killed Moffitt. Appellant fled the scene in a gold

Ford F150.

       {¶3}   On May 12, 2018, Newark police learned the Ohio State Highway Patrol

was investigating Appellant's involvement in a road-rage incident, during which he was

also driving the gold Ford F150 on Interstate 70 westbound near mile post 137 in Licking

County. In this incident, Appellant passed a vehicle, went onto the berm of the highway,

stopped in front of the vehicle, and fired at least one shot at the vehicle. The driver of the

vehicle went around Appellant and fled. On the morning of May 13, 2018, Newark police

found the gold Ford F150 abandoned near railroad tracks behind a residence on Hudson

Avenue in Newark. Police watched the vehicle until Appellant was arrested later that

evening.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00012                                                   3

       {¶4}   At the time of his arrest, a firearm was found on Appellant's person.

Appellant was Mirandized and interviewed. He admitted killing Moffitt.

       {¶5}   Appellant was charged by indictment as follows: one count of murder

pursuant to R.C. 2903.02(A), an unclassified felony [Count I]; one count of involuntary

manslaughter pursuant to R.C. 2903.04(A), a felony of the first degree [Count II]; one

count of having weapons while under disability pursuant to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony

of the third degree [Count III]; one count of felonious assault pursuant to R.C.

2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the second degree [Count IV]; one count of having weapons

while under disability pursuant to R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a felony of the third degree [Count

V]; and one count of improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle pursuant to R.C.

2923.26(B), a felony of the fourth degree [Count VI]. Counts I, II, and IV were

accompanied by repeat-violent-offender specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.149(A) and

firearm specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.145(A). Appellant entered guilty pleas to

involuntary manslaughter, felonious assault with a firearm specification, having a weapon

under disability, and improper handling of a firearm in a motor vehicle. The State

dismissed the remaining charges.

       {¶6}   Appellant was sentenced by the Licking County Common Pleas Court to six

years incarceration for involuntary manslaughter, eight years incarceration for felonious

assault, three years incarceration for the firearm specification, three years incarceration

for having a weapon under disability, and one year incarceration for improper handling of

a firearm in a motor vehicle, with all sentences except the one year for improper handling

of a firearm to be served consecutively to each other, but concurrently to the one year

sentence for improper handling of a firearm, for an aggregate prison term of twenty years.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00012                                                       4

       {¶7}   Appellant filed an appeal to this Court, arguing the trial court erred in failing

to merge the convictions of felonious assault and improper handling of a firearm, and the

trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentences without making the requisite statutory

findings at the sentencing hearing. We found the trial court did not err in failing to merge

the convictions, but found the trial court failed to make the required findings before

imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Priest, 5th Dist. Licking No. 19-CA-14, 2021-

Ohio-3418. We vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

       {¶8}   On remand, the trial court imposed the same sentence.          Appellant again

appealed to this Court. We found the trial court failed to make the requisite findings before

imposing consecutive sentences because the trial court’s findings concerning

disproportionality did not meet the statutory requirements.         State v. Priest, 5th Dist.

Licking No. 2022 CA 00022, 2022-Ohio-4291.               We reversed and remanded for

resentencing.

       {¶9}   On remand, the trial court imposed the same sentence, finding consecutive

sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish Appellant,

consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of Appellant’s conduct

and to the danger he poses to the public, and Appellant’s history of criminal conduct

demonstrates consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future

crime by Appellant. It is from the January 30, 2023 judgment of the trial court Appellant

prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:

              THE     TRIAL    COURT’S       IMPOSITION        OF     CONSECUTIVE

       SENTENCES WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00012                                                       5

       {¶10} Appellant argues the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was

not supported by the record because his written statement, as set forth in the presentence

investigation report filed under seal in this case, indicates he acted in defense of a sixteen-

year-old boy present at the house when he killed Moffitt. He argues the imposition of

consecutive sentences was “needlessly duplicative” because he was already receiving a

mandatory sentence for the firearm specification, and his history of criminal conduct

reflects only one prior prison sentence.

       {¶11} R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) provides:

              (4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions

       of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison

       terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is

       necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender

       and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness

       of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,

       and if the court also finds any of the following:

              (a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses

       while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction

       imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised

       Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.

              (b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of

       one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of

       the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00012                                                     6

       prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses

       of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct.

              (c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that

       consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime

       by the offender.

       {¶12} The trial court must make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at the sentencing

hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no obligation to

state reasons to support its findings, nor must it recite certain talismanic words or phrases

in order to be considered to have complied. State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-

Ohio-3177, syllabus.

       {¶13} In deciding whether to impose consecutive sentencing, the trial court is to

consider the aggregate term of incarceration which will result from consecutive

sentencing.   State v. Gwynne, 2022-Ohio-4607, 2022 WL 17870605, ¶¶14-15.                  In

Gwynne, the Ohio Supreme Court recently clarified the standard of review this Court is to

use on review of consecutive sentences:

              It is important to understand that the standards referenced above

       have very specific meanings and fall into one of two categories—either a

       standard of review or an evidentiary standard of proof. “Abuse of discretion,”

       “clearly erroneous,” and “substantial evidence” are traditional forms of

       appellate-court deference that are applied to a trial court's decisions. They

       are standards of review that are applied by a reviewing court to certain
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00012                                                     7

      decisions that are made by a fact-finder. They are, in essence, screens

      through which reviewing courts must view the original fact-finder's decision.

      In contrast, “preponderance,” “clear and convincing,” and “beyond a

      reasonable doubt” are evidentiary standards of proof. These standards

      apply to a fact-finder's consideration of the evidence. R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)’s

      requirement that appellate courts apply the clear-and-convincing standard

      on review indicates that the legislature did not intend for appellate courts to

      defer to a trial court's findings but to act as a second fact-finder in reviewing

      the trial court's order of consecutive sentences.

             In this role as a finder of fact, the appellate court essentially functions

      in the same way as the trial court when imposing consecutive sentences in

      the first instance. There are three key differences, however. The first

      difference, which is discerned from the language of R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), is

      that the appellate court is constrained to considering only the findings in

      R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) that the trial court has actually made. In other words, a

      reviewing court cannot determine for itself which of the three permissible

      findings within R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(a)-(c) might apply to satisfy the third

      required finding for imposing consecutive sentences, as the trial court is

      permitted to do. The second difference involves the standard of proof.

      Whereas the trial court's standard of proof under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) is a

      preponderance of the evidence—i.e., that when considered as a whole, the

      evidence demonstrates that the proposition of fact represented by the

      finding is more likely true, or more probable, than not—an appellate court
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00012                                                          8

       applies a clear and convincing evidence standard of proof. And the third

       difference is the inversion of the ultimate question before the court.

       Whereas the trial court is tasked with determining whether the proposition

       of fact represented by each finding is more likely—or more probably—true

       than not, an appellate court's task is to determine whether it has a firm belief

       or conviction that the proposition of fact represented by each finding is not

       true on consideration of the evidence in the record.

               Thus, when viewed in its proper context, the deference that a trial

       court's consecutive-sentence findings receive comes from the language of

       R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), which imposes a higher evidentiary standard to reverse

       or modify consecutive sentences. It does not stem from any statutory

       requirement that the appellate court defer to the trial court's findings when

       considering whether reversal or modification is appropriate under R.C.

       2953.08(G)(2).

       {¶14} Id. at ¶¶20-22.

       {¶15} Upon review of the sentencing transcript and the presentence investigation

filed under seal in this case, we are not “left with a firm belief or conviction that the findings

are not supported by the evidence.” See, Id. at ¶27. The offenses to which Appellant pled

guilty involved two separate incidents and victims. While Appellant’s written statement

indicated he was acting in defense of a teenage boy during the first incident, the person

who conducted the presentence investigation interview noted Appellant’s comments

during the interview contradicted the remorse Appellant expressed in his written
Licking County, Case No. 2023 CA 00012                                                 9

statement. Further, the interviewer noted Appellant has a significant criminal record and

displays high criminal thinking.   The PSI recommended the maximum sentence be

imposed. Appellant has a lengthy criminal record of both misdemeanors and felonies,

committed both as a juvenile and as an adult. We find the record supports the imposition

of consecutive sentences in the instant case.

      {¶16} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Licking County

Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

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