[Cite as State v. Robertson,
2020-Ohio-521.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
OTTAWA COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-19-018
Appellee Trial Court No. 19 CR 005
v.
William Robertson DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: February 14, 2020
…
James J. VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Barbara Gallé Rivas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Russell V. Leffler, for appellant.
…
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a May 3, 2019 judgment of the Ottawa County Court
of Common Pleas, sentencing appellant to a four year and 11-month term of incarceration
following appellant’s conviction pursuant to a voluntary plea agreement on three counts
of breaking and entering, felonies of the fifth degree, two counts of theft, misdemeanors
of the first degree, one count of burglary, a felony of the third degree, one count of failure
to comply, a felony of the third degree, and one amended count of unlawful restraint, a
misdemeanor of the third degree. In exchange, an additional ten criminal offenses,
including both felonies and misdemeanors, pending against appellant were dismissed.
For the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Appellant, William Robertson, sets forth the following two assignments of
error:
I. IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND A DENIAL OF
DUE PROCESS FOR THE COURT TO SENTENCE THE DEFENDANT
BASED UPON INACCURATE [PSI] INFORMATION.
II. TRIAL COURT IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER AND MAKE
FINDINGS IN A FAILURE TO COMPLY CASE UNDER O.R.C.
2921.331(B) AND (C).
{¶ 3} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. On
December 22-23, 2018, appellant and his wife committed an extensive, drug-fueled crime
spree at numerous locations in the Port Clinton, Ohio area. This crime wave triggered a
multi-agency law enforcement search for the perpetrators and culminated in a high-speed
chase along State Route 2. Appellant abandoned his vehicle and wife during the chase,
evaded capture, and fled the area. Appellant was apprehended the following week in
Mansfield, Ohio.
2.
{¶ 4} In the course of these crimes, the duo broke into a multitude of commercial
businesses, passenger cars, and commercial semi-trucks. They stole an array of items
including toolboxes, brass fittings, hand tools, a concrete saw, an air brake repair kit,
ratchet straps, a chainsaw, a miter saw, a truck bed attachment, bolt cutters, a
sledgehammer, and miscellaneous items in order to subsequently sell the stolen property.
{¶ 5} Appellant had familiarity with many of the targeted locations and items
given appellant’s past employment in the area as a commercial truck driver. During the
course of the considerable period of time that appellant and his wife spent at the Holcomb
trucking company scouring the premises to select and secure items to steal, the victim
arrived on the scene, immediately reported the crimes to law enforcement, and followed
the fleeing perpetrators in his vehicle in order to provide information to the pursuing
officers. The ensuing police chase involved pursuit by a number of law enforcement
agencies, including local, state, and federal law enforcement.
{¶ 6} Ultimately, appellant fled on foot and left his wife behind as law
enforcement closed in on the duo. Appellant’s wife was captured and cooperated with
law enforcement in connection to these crimes.
{¶ 7} After evading capture, appellant arranged to meet a relative at a Port Clinton
store. Appellant told the relative that he had a gun and demanded to be driven to
Mansfield to abscond to a drug house known to appellant. Law enforcement was
eventually able to locate and arrest appellant in Mansfield several days later by pinging
the location of the relative’s mobile phone.
3.
{¶ 8} On January 9, 2019, appellant was indicted on 18 offenses arising from
appellant’s above-described crime spree. A presentence investigation was ordered.
{¶ 9} On March 18, 2019, pursuant to a voluntary plea agreement, appellant pled
guilty to seven of the charged offenses, one amended offense, and the remaining ten
offenses were dismissed. The record reflects that appellant clearly affirmed his
understanding that the pleas exposed him to a potential total term of incarceration in
excess of nine years.
{¶ 10} Notably, the transcript of the change of plea proceedings reflects that the
trial court conveyed pertinent facts including that appellant had threatened the relative
who assisted appellant escaping and did not permit that person to leave the car during
those events. The transcript further reflects that the trial court confirmed appellant’s
agreement with the recitation of these facts during the change of plea proceedings. The
trial court inquired, “Do you agree?” Appellant replied, “Yes, sir.”
{¶ 11} On May 3, 2019, appellant was sentenced. The record reflects that counter
to the severity of the above-described crimes, counsel for appellant optimistically
advocated at sentencing that appellant receive community control and placement in a
treatment-based facility in lieu of incarceration.
{¶ 12} When given an opportunity to speak on his own behalf at sentencing, the
record reflects appellant’s failure to take accountability for his crimes, minimization of
his crimes, and projection of accountability to his former employer and to his wife.
Appellant stated, “My life was spiraling out of control in 2017. I started driving a vehicle
4.
for a hotshot outfit … I drove on meth because I was forced by dispatch to stay up and
do all those miles … I sought treatment in the past and I always got turned away. [This
assertion is refuted by the record] … my wife cheated on me while I got locked up in
Indiana.” (Emphasis added).
{¶ 13} Appellant was sentenced to a total term of incarceration of four years and
11 months, approximately one-half of the potential maximum term of incarceration faced
by appellant as a result of the plea agreement. This appeal ensued.
{¶ 14} Both assignments of error stand for the proposition that appellant was
unlawfully sentenced in this case. We do not concur.
{¶ 15} Pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), in reviewing a disputed felony sentence,
an appellate court may reduce, modify, or vacate the sentence and remand the case to the
trial court if the disputed sentence was based upon applicable statutory findings not
supported by the record of evidence or was otherwise contrary to law. State v.
Tammerine, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-13-1081, 2014-Ohio-425, ¶ 11.
{¶ 16} In the first assignment of error, appellant maintains that the trial court
sentence was improper based upon information contained in the PSI report. We do not
concur.
{¶ 17} Specifically, appellant suggests that the report contained materially
inaccurate correspondence from a sheriff’s deputy, “claiming repeatedly that the
defendant had kidnapped someone and demanding he be sent to prison.”
5.
{¶ 18} We note that the record clearly reflects that despite semantic discrepancies
in the version of events conveyed to law enforcement by appellant’s relative, the
transcript of the change of plea proceedings reflects that appellant concurred with the
material, factual overview of the trial court that appellant had threatened the relative and
did not permit him to leave the car.
{¶ 19} With respect to the above-referenced letter from the sheriff’s deputy
included in the PSI, the record reflects appellant’s subjective characterization of the
contents of the correspondence to be misleading and self-serving.
{¶ 20} Contrary to appellant’s assertion that the letter “demanded” that the trial
court send appellant to prison, the correspondence deferentially states, “In my opinion,
[appellant] needs to be sent to prison … Given the gravity of the situation, justice is
best served by sending [appellant] to prison … Thank you for considering my opinion
in this matter.” (Emphasis added).
{¶ 21} In addition, appellant maintains that his sentence was somehow
compromised due to an inaccuracy in the presentence investigation reflecting a prior
felony conviction. Appellant suggests, without evidentiary support, that this prejudicially
influenced the trial court in crafting the non-maximum sentence. The transcript of the
sentencing hearing refutes this contention.
{¶ 22} The record reflects that counsel for appellant unequivocally stated to the
trial court at sentencing that appellant, “has no [prior] felony convictions.” The record
reflects that the trial court did not take issue with or in any way dispute this fact. Any
6.
suggestions that the incongruous information in the PSI caused a prejudicial sentence to
be imposed upon appellant is purely speculative and lacks evidentiary support.
{¶ 23} In addition, appellant suggests on appeal, likewise without evidentiary
support, that another portion of the law enforcement letter included in the PSI culminated
in an unlawful sentence. In the course of describing appellant’s crime spree, the
correspondence stated, “[Appellant] led several different law enforcement assets on a
week-long manhunt which ultimately ended with a standoff in Mansfield Ohio.”
{¶ 24} Appellant argues on appeal, “[C]alling this a week-long manhunt from a
series of small thefts seems over the top.” We find appellant’s concerns in this regard to
be unfounded.
{¶ 25} The record clearly reflects that appellant and his wife went on a several-day
crime spree committing a high volume of serious crimes involving numerous victims.
The record reflects that appellant led multiple police agencies on a high-speed chase on a
busy state route including both law enforcement motor vehicles and a helicopter. The
record reflects that appellant ultimately prevailed in his escape. The record reflects that
appellant utilized a relative to flee the area under coercive circumstances. The record
reflects that it was approximately a week later in which appellant was apprehended by a
SWAT team in Mansfield Ohio.
{¶ 26} We find that appellant has failed to submit any convincing, objective
evidence in support of the notion that appellant’s sentence was compromised and
7.
prejudiced by the accompanying PSI. We find appellant’s first assignment of error not
well-taken.
{¶ 27} In the second assignment of error, appellant summarily maintains that the
portion of appellant’s sentence stemming from appellant’s failure to comply conviction
should have more properly been one year of incarceration, rather than two years.
{¶ 28} In support, appellant asserts that, “there was no indication from the trial
court that the court considered any of [the failure to comply] factors.” The transcripts of
proceedings reflect the lack of merit of this position.
{¶ 29} The transcript of the change of plea proceedings states in pertinent part,
“After the fleeing and eluding arising from the car chase on December 23 when the
Sheriff’s officer is trying to get the vehicle to stop, and it followed the vehicle on routes 2
and 53, and there were a number of law enforcement agencies assisting. There was a
helicopter from the Ohio State Highway Patrol [assisting in the chase], the Port Clinton
fire department, [and] US border control.”
{¶ 30} Suggestions that the trial court failed to consider the facts and
circumstances surrounding the failure to comply offense and conviction are without
merit. We find appellant’s second assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 31} Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the disputed trial court sentence
was based upon applicable statutory findings not supported by the record or was
8.
otherwise contrary to law. Accordingly, the judgment of the Ottawa County Court of
Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
Christine E. Mayle, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
9.
