The Akron Legal News

Court must assess young man's ability to pay before imposing restitution in his murder case, judges rule

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 15, 2015

A man found guilty of shooting and killing a woman during an armed robbery recently lost his appeal challenging his sentence from the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas.

The 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court properly ordered Garrett Brown to serve consecutive prison terms for his offenses. However, it also ruled that the court improperly imposed a restitution order without considering Brown’s ability to pay and reversed the sentence in part.

“The matter is remanded for further proceedings in accord with this opinion,” Judge John Willamowski wrote in his opinion for the court.

In June 2014, the state filed a complaint in juvenile court alleging that Brown was delinquent for causing the death of another during the course of an aggravated robbery or aggravated burglary. He was 17 years old at the time of the alleged offense.

The state then presented evidence that in May 2014, Brown went with Tyson Ogg and Dallas Salaz to commit a theft offense. The three reportedly went to the home of Janelle Mauricio and Caleb Barto to steal marijuana and cash.

When they reached the house, Ogg stayed in the car while Brown and Salaz forced their way inside while wearing masks. Salaz then beat Barto with a “tire tool” and Mauricio called out Brown by name when she recognized him, according to case summary.

Mauricio was then pushed onto the couch and Brown reportedly shot her in the leg before fleeing with Salaz.

Barto took Mauricio to the hospital where she later died from her injury.

The juvenile court found Brown to be indigent and appointed counsel for him. The state then moved to transfer the case to the general division and the juvenile court granted that motion.

Brown ultimately entered an agreement with the state and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary and murder with a gun specification. In exchange, the state dismissed two additional gun specifications.

Part of the plea agreement stated that restitution could be imposed, but it did not stipulate an amount.

The trial court then ordered Brown to serve nine years for the aggravated burglary, three years for aggravated robbery and 15 years to life for murder with an additional three years for the gun specification. It then stated that the terms should run consecutively for a total of 20 years to life in prison.

In addition, the court mandated that Brown pay $2,400 in restitution to Freddie Mauricio and $8,599 in restitution to the victims of crime compensation.

On appeal, Brown first asserted that the trial court erred by sentencing him to more than the minimum sentences and by ordering those sentences to run consecutively. He stated that his convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary should have merged.

The 3rd District first addressed the legality of consecutive sentences.

It noted that the trial court knew Brown was the one who carried the gun and shot Mauricio, heard victim impact statements from her friends and family, and heard Brown’s statement. It also reviewed the presentence investigation report.

At the sentencing hearing, the trial court explained that a minimum prison sentence would not “adequately protect the public from future crime by this defendant or others.” It therefore found that consecutive sentences were necessary to punish Brown and protect the public from him. It further noted that the harm caused was so great that a single prison term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime.

“The record indicates that evidence was presented to the trial court regarding the sentencing factors and that the trial court considered the relevant ones, including the youth of the defendant,” Willamowski stated.

The appellate judges found that the trial court also noted that Brown’s juvenile record was several pages long. They therefore ruled that consecutive sentences were properly supported.

The district court next determined that Brown’s convictions could not merge.

Specifically, it found that Brown committed aggravated burglary when he forced his way into the home with plans to commit a criminal offense and harmed Barto and Mauricio while doing so. When Salaz beat Barto with the tire iron, the court found the aggravated burglary was committed.

The aggravated robbery did not take place until Brown brandished his gun and threatened Barto and Mauricio while committing a theft offense.

“The underlying events indicate that each of these offenses occurred at different times and with separate animus. Therefore, the offenses do not merge pursuant to R.C. 2941.25,” Willamowski stated.

Brown next argued that the trial court improperly imposed a restitution order without considering his ability to pay.

The appellate court found that because Brown was only 17 when he committed the offense, he had not finished high school and did not have any source of income. It further determined that he had been deemed indigent and owed the juvenile court $1,500.

“Although the language of the guilty plea warned Brown that restitution may be ordered as part of his sentence, he did not agree to pay restitution or to the amount of any restitution. Without some evidence in the record to support the trial court’s apparent conclusion that Brown had or would have the ability to pay restitution, this court must reverse the judgment as to restitution for failure to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(5),” Willamowski concluded.

Presiding Judge John Rogers and Judge Vernon Preston joined Willamowski in affirming the prison terms and remanding the case so the lower court could reassess its restitution order.

The case is cited State v. Brown, 2015-Ohio-3402.

[Back]