In *State v. Truss*, 2022-Ohio-3859, the Delaware County Court of Appeals affirmed the maximum sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Anthony D. Truss, Jr. following a negotiated guilty plea in the Delaware Court of Common Pleas. The incident occurred on March 3, 2021, at the Polaris Fashion Place mall, where Truss confronted his ex-girlfriend and her companion, Levon Sommerville, regarding custody of their child. An altercation ensued after Truss attempted to take the child from the carriage, leading to Sommerville drawing a firearm. During the confrontation, Sommerville fired a shot while falling backward. Truss then brandished his own firearm and shot at least four times in Sommerville's direction in a crowded area of the mall. Both individuals were arrested in Georgia a month later and claimed self-defense. Truss was indicted for attempted murder, felonious assault, and inducing panic, with firearm-use specifications. On December 7, 2021, he pleaded guilty to felonious assault and a lesser charge of inducing panic, without any other agreements. The judgment was entered on October 28, 2022.
On January 10, 2022, the court held a sentencing hearing for Truss, resulting in an indefinite prison term of eight to twelve years for Count Two, plus an additional three years for a Firearm Specification. The misdemeanor on Count Three was to run concurrently, yielding a total aggregate sentence of eleven to fifteen years. Truss received 243 days of jail time credit and was informed of a mandatory five years of post-release supervision.
Truss raised two Assignments of Error:
1. He argued that the trial court's decision to impose a maximum sentence lacked clear and convincing evidence, asserting that the sentence burdened the state prison system, was disproportionate to his conduct, and inconsistent with sentences for other offenders.
2. He contended that indefinite prison terms under the Reagan Tokes Law violated constitutional guarantees of jury trials, separation of powers, and due process.
Regarding appellate review, the court is mandated to assess the entire trial record, including oral and written statements and presentence investigation reports. The standard of review permits increasing, reducing, modifying, or vacating a sentence if found unsupported by the record or contrary to law.
The state argued that Truss waived his right to appeal his sentence under his Crim. R. 11(F) agreement, which the court disagreed with, affirming Truss's entitlement to appeal the maximum sentence due to specific provisions in the agreement acknowledging his right to appeal.
The court clarified that imposing a maximum sentence is lawful as long as it falls within the statutory range and considers the purposes and principles of felony sentencing, alongside the seriousness and recidivism factors outlined in relevant Ohio Revised Code sections.
A court imposing a felony sentence must consider the purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the factors under R.C. 2929.12, but is not required to make specific factual findings on the record. Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b), an appellate court cannot modify or vacate a sentence solely based on its assessment of whether it is supported by the record according to R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12. The Ohio Supreme Court clarified that appellate review is permissible if a sentence is claimed to be improperly imposed based on considerations outside the statutory framework. A sentence imposed based on extraneous factors is deemed contrary to law and thus reviewable.
In the case of Truss, the trial court considered various statements and a pre-sentence investigation report, acknowledging the circumstances of the offense, including Truss firing shots at Sommerville and fleeing to Georgia after the incident. The court weighed seriousness and recidivism factors, finding that Truss's sentence was within the statutory range and aligned with sentencing statutes. Truss failed to show that his sentence was based on impermissible considerations. The record did not include details from the co-defendant Sommerville’s sentencing, which limits comparative analysis of their sentences. In a referenced case, disparities in sentencing between co-defendants were noted, but specific details were not available for Truss and Sommerville.
On appeal, Truss contended that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a harsher sentence than his co-defendant, Newbauer, who received probation while Truss was sentenced to one year in prison. The Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged the apparent disparity but maintained that an appellate court generally does not review a trial court's sentencing discretion when the sentence is within statutory limits. The court noted that Truss failed to provide precedent supporting the reversal of a valid sentence based on unequal punishment among co-defendants, emphasizing that different sentences may be justified due to individualized factors.
In Truss's Second Assignment of Error, he argued that the Reagan Tokes Act is unconstitutional, claiming violations of his rights to trial by jury, due process, and the separation of powers. The court, referencing a dissenting opinion from a previous case, upheld the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law and noted its endorsement by several other districts. Both of Truss's assignments of error were overruled, and the judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas was affirmed.
