The Akron Legal News

Man who helped dismember, dispose of body receives maximum sentence

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 29, 2013

Recently the 2nd District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence of the Champaign County Court of Common Pleas when it sentenced Andrew Forney to maximum consecutive sentences for abuse of a corpse and obstructing justice.

Upon appeal, Forney claimed the trial court erred by imposing maximum sentences on all of the charges against him and by failing to merge several of the counts he pleaded guilty to.

The charges against Forney stemmed from his role, along with others, in helping his friend, Matthew Puccio, dismember and dispose of the body of Jessica Sacco.

According to case summary, Puccio stabbed and suffocated Sacco in a residence they shared.

Forney, who was in the home at the time, helped move Sacco’s body into a bathtub and proceeded to help dismember her body with pliers, a knife and a sword.

The dismemberment occurred in multiple sessions and lasted hours.

Afterward, Forney and his wife transported Puccio and Sacco’s body to Butler County in Forney’s van. Forney and his wife slept in the van with the body parts before disposing of them.

Police ultimately arrested Forney, Puccio and others in connection with the death and dismemberment of Sacco.

As part of a plea agreement, Forney pleaded guilty to charges of failure to report a crime, abuse of a corpse, gross abuse of a corpse, obstructing justice and complicity to evidence tampering.

The trial court merged two of the counts but declined to merge others and subsequently imposed an aggregate 10-year prison sentence.

Forney argued in his appeal that the trial court’s imposition of partially consecutive sentences and its imposition of maximum sentences was an abuse of discretion.

“Forney does not dispute that the trial court complied with the applicable sentencing statutes,” wrote Judge Michael Hall on behalf of the Second District’s three-judge appellate panel. “Therefore, he does not argue that his sentence is contrary to law.”

Instead, the appellate panel found Forney’s argument hinged on the fact that the trial court abused its discretion when considering the statutory “principles and purposes of sentencing” and the seriousness and recidivism factors that caused them to find the maximum sentences appropriate.

Forney stressed that his lack of any criminal record, his expression of remorse and his cooperation with law enforcement were mitigating factors that worked against the imposition of a maximum sentence.

“He contends the trail court overweighed the seriousness of his conduct while giving too little weight to the mitigating factors mentioned in his brief,” wrote Hall.

Forney also claimed that the recidivism factors showed little likelihood of him re-offending, that his offenses occurred under “circumstances unlikely to occur” and that he acted under strong provocation in the form of “direction” from Puccio.

Citing a case from earlier this year, Hall wrote, “The trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within the authorized statutory range, and the court is not required to make any findings or give its reasons for imposing maximum or more than minimum sentences.”

Trial courts are, however, required to make findings before imposing consecutive sentences.

The appellate panel found that the trial court did, in fact, make the requisite findings pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Before imposing Forney’s sentence, the Champaign County court noted that “consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime and to punish the defendant.”

The trial court also concluded that the seriousness of Forney’s conduct called for more than one sentence: “The harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses was so great or so unusual that no single prison term for any of he offenses adequately reflects the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct.”

Though Forney’s appeal noted that the trial court gave a large amount of weight to the relative seriousness of his crimes, the appellate panel found that the court did consider other, mitigating factors.

“The trial court recognized Forney’s lack of a prior criminal record, and it agreed with him that recidivism appeared ‘less likely’ under the statutory factors,” wrote Hall.

However, the common pleas court determined that the seriousness of the crime outweighed the fact that it was unlikely to occur again.

“There is no way the court can consider your conduct of a less serious nature,” the trial court stated.

Forney continued to argue that Sacco was already dead when he committed his crimes and nothing about his occupation or relationship to her contributed to the offense.

While the court of appeals agreed the trial court may have overstated the grave nature of the crimes, it could not identify an instance where it abused its discretion.

“Given the nature of Forney’s crimes, we agree that the enumerated (seriousness) factors have little applicability,” wrote Hall. “But the trial court was also entitled to consider ‘any other relevant factors.’”

Specifically, Hall noted that Forney had several opportunities to stop what he was doing and report what had occurred.

“Instead,” wrote Hall. “He engaged in unspeakable acts over an extended time period and exhibited a level of coldness and depravity that reasonably warranted the aggregate sentence he received.”

Hall concluded, “We see no error in the trial court’s evaluation of the statutory seriousness and recidivism factors, in its decision to impose maximum sentences, or in its consecutive-sentence findings.”

The appellate panel also overruled Forney’s argument that some of the charges against him should have been merged for sentencing.

Specifically, Forney contended that obstructing justice and abuse of a corpse were allied offenses.

Finding that the crimes took place over several days and long distances, Hall wrote that one could conclude that each offense took place separately, at different times, in different places and with a separate animus.

“In short, abusing the corpse by disposing of Sacco’s body in Butler County was a separate and distinct act from moving her body into the bathroom in Champaign County to dismember it.”

Therefore, the appellate panel found the trial court properly refused to merge the counts as allied offenses.

The court of appeals ultimately ruled to affirm the judgment of the Champaign County Court of Common Pleas with Presiding Judge Mike Fain and Judge Mary Donovan joining Hall in the unanimous decision.

The case is cited State v. Forney, 2013-Ohio-3034.

[Back]