The Akron Legal News

PTSD 'no excuse' for ex-Marine's gun attack on police

Justice William O’Neill at the court’s decision to discount post-traumatic stress disorder as a cause for a defendants criminal actions. “The United States Marine Corps took a marginal recruit from an abusive family and turned him into a fighting machine. They sent him to Iraq to defend all of us, and in the process they turned him into a confused alcoholic with a clear diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder and possibly a traumatic brain injury,” he wrote. (Legal News file photo)

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 1, 2014

In a 4-3 decision handed down recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to issue an opinion on how trial courts should consider post-traumatic stress disorder when sentencing a veteran.

The majority, including justices Paul Pfeifer, Terrence O’Donnell, Sharon Kennedy and Judith French, dismissed Jeffery Belew’s appeal as having been improvidently accepted.

The dissent, however, expressed its disagreement in a strongly worded opinion.

Belew’s case started in April 2011 when he fired at least four shots at police officers as they responded to a domestic disturbance report in Oregon, Ohio.

The shots struck one of the police cruisers twice and Belew did not obey commands to cease fire.

His shooting continued until one of the officers returned fire and struck him in the chest.

He was then placed under arrest and transported to an area hospital.

Belew was later indicted and charged with two counts of aggravated murder of a law-enforcement officer and two counts of felonious assault.

After entering pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity, Belew was evaluated by two psychologists who found that he did not qualify for the insanity defense.

One of the doctors diagnosed Belew with alcohol dependence, persistent major depression and PTSD as a result of his military service in Iraq.

The psychologist further opined that Belew was hoping to be killed by police on the day of the shooting.

The second psychologist found evidence of a personality disorder.

After plea negotiations, Belew pleaded guilty and the state dismissed some of the counts and specifications.

At a sentencing hearing, the Lucas County trial judge reviewed a presentence report and heard statements from the psychologists as well as from Belew.

“Mr. Belew, you claim that you suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of being in the military and you provide that as an excuse for your actions. There is no excuse, Mr. Belew,” the trial judge stated.

She went on to state concerns about Belew’s given reason for joining the Marines, “to see how many people (he) could kill,” and his reputation of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol and in trouble.

The record also showed that Belew received a bad conduct discharge for stealing government property after he took a Humvee for a “joy ride” while intoxicated.

The judge did note Belew’s intoxication at the time and emphasized that he was “lucky to be standing here today” as the police could have killed him.

Still she told him “because of your actions I believe you are a danger to this community” and sentenced him to an aggregate term of 27 years in prison, finding that no single sentence would reflect the seriousness of his conduct.

Belew appealed his sentence to the 6th District Court of Appeals, where it was affirmed.

The state’s high court then accepted a discretionary appeal.

Before the justices, Belew asserted that the trial court did not properly consider PTSD as a substantial reason to mitigate his conduct and contended that he should have received the minimum aggregate sentence of 10 years.

“I believe that this case provides us with an opportunity to review statutory requirements for the consideration of mitigating evidence and the imposition of consecutive sentences, as well as the standard of review to be used by the courts of appeals,” Justice Judith Lanzinger wrote in her dissent.

Upon review, Justice Lanzinger found that the trial judge did consider Belew’s PTSD, alcohol abuse and problems with authority.

The justice pointed out that R.C. 2929.12(F) has been enacted since Belew’s sentencing and it requires a trial court to consider PTSD and its possible impact but gives the sentencing judge the discretion to determine the weight of that factor.

Justice Lanzinger held that Belew did not receive the maximum sentence, showing that the trial judge did give weight to some of the mitigating factors in the case.

She further maintained that the record did not give the appellate court grounds to reverse because it did not provide clear and convincing evidence that Belew’s sentence was contrary to law.

“Although different judges may have weighed the statutory factors at issue here differently, the relevant statutes did not allow the appellate court to substitute its own judgment for that of the trial court. All findings of the trial judge have record support and the required findings were made,” she stated.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor joined Justice Lanzinger in stating that they would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and dissent from the majority’s dismissal.

In a separate dissent, Justice William O’Neill stated his outrage at the court’s decision.

“The United States Marine Corps took a marginal recruit from an abusive family and turned him into a fighting machine. They sent him to Iraq to defend all of us, and in the process they turned him into a confused alcoholic with a clear diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder and possibly a traumatic brain injury,” he wrote.

Justice O’Neill highlighted that Belew never received treatment for his PTSD and accused the Marines of discharging him when they “no longer needed the product they had created.”

He further asserted that they gave him a “less-than-honorable discharge” and deprived him of medical assistance through the Department of Veterans Affairs that he “so desperately needed.”

Justice O’Neill agreed that Belew “did not fit in” as a civilian and struggled with drugs and alcohol.

It was his opinion that Belew’s offense was “without question” an attempt to commit suicide by cop.

“Incredibly, the trial court and the court of appeals have locked onto the phrase ‘no excuse,’” he wrote, citing the trial judge’s accusation that Belew used PTSD as an excuse for his behavior.

“I would respectfully suggest that one trial court judge, three appellate court judges, and the majority of this court simply do not get it. PTSD is not an excuse. It is an explanation.”

He continued to reason that Belew is “tragically” not the only veteran to be found in such a situation while suffering from PTSD.

He urged the courts to “do better” when handling those cases and insisted that he would remand the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing that properly considered Belew’s military service and PTSD.

“Anything else is unreasonable,” he stated.

The case is cited State v. Belew, 2014-Ohio-2964.

[Back]