State v. FraleyState v. Fraley
Brian T. Goldberg, for appellant.
PIPER, J.
{1} On November 22, 2019, Fraley was indicted by the Butler County Grand Jury on 101 counts involving child pornography. He ultimately pled guilty to eight counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor in violation of
{2} On October 12, 2021, the trial court held a combined plea and sentencing hearing. The trial court advised Fraley that it could impose a 76-year-prison-term, and an additional four-year term under the Reagan Tokes Act if all counts were run consecutively. After the trial court engaged in a full colloquy, Fraley informed the court that he understood the consequences of his plea and wanted to enter a guilty plea.
{3} The state read the statement of facts. As stated therein, and as observed by the trial court, the pornography that Fraley distributed, disseminated, and possessed is “abhorrent.” The trial court stated, “I don‘t even know if the word ‘abhorrent’ is a strong enough word for what is depicted in some of these videos.” After entering his guilty plea to the 16 counts, the trial court proceeded to sentencing and imposed the following sanctions:
Count 2: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-2), 7 years;
Count 5: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-2), 5 years;
Count 8: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-2), 3 years;
Count 11: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-2), 8-12 years;
Count 20: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-2), 5 years;
Count 23: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-4), 15 months;
Count 26: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-2), 5 years;
Count 29: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-4), 15 months;
Count 32: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-4), 18 months;
Count 38: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-2), 8 years;
Count 41: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-4), 18 months;
Count 55: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-4), 15 months;
Count 57: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-4), 15 months;
Count 59: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-4), 18 months;
Count 61: Pandering Sexually Oriented Matter Involving a Minor (F-4), 15 months.
{4} The trial court ordered counts 2, 11, 32, 35, 38, and 59 be served consecutively while the remaining counts were ordered to be served concurrently. Therefore, Fraley was sentenced to 31-35 years in prison. He was also designated as a Tier II sexual offender. Fraley timely appealed, raising four assignments of error for review. For ease of discussion, we will address Fraley‘s assignments of error out of order.
{5} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{6} THE REAGAN TOKES ACT, AS ENACTED BY THE OHIO LEGISLATOR [sic] IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY SENTENCING MR. FRALEY UNDER THAT ACT.
{7} In his first assignment of error, Fraley challenges the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law on the basis that it violates his due process rights and the separation-of-powers doctrine. However, the arguments he now raises on appeal have been previously considered and rejected by this court. State v. Bloodworth, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2021-08-073, 2022-Ohio-1899, ¶ 50. Specifically, this court has already determined that the
{8} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{9} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MR. FRALEY BY IMPROPERLY SENTENCING HIM TO CONSECUTIVE PRISON TERMS.
{10} Assignment of Error No. 4:
{11} THE SENTENCE OF 31-35 YEARS IN PRISON IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD AND WAS IMPOSED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE NECESSARY STATUTORY FACTORS.
{12} In his second and fourth assignments of error, Fraley alleges that his prison sentence of 31-35 years is not supported by the record and is contrary to law. He also argues that the trial court erred by sentencing him to consecutive prison terms.
{13} It is well established that when reviewing felony sentences, appellate courts must apply the standard of review set forth in
Aggregate Sentence
{14} Fraley argues that the trial court‘s decision to sentence him to 31-35 years in prison is not supported by
{15} In this case, Fraley does not dispute that the trial court made the necessary consecutive sentencing findings but argues that those findings are not supported by the record. Specifically, Fraley challenges the trial court‘s finding that the imposition of consecutive sentences was not disproportionate to the danger he poses to the public. While acknowledging that the crimes he pled guilty to were horrific, he argues that he had no prior felony history and only had misdemeanor convictions related to his addiction to
{16} Following review, we find the trial court did not err by sentencing Fraley to consecutive prison terms. In the present case, the record reflects that the trial court made the findings required by
{17} The trial court memorialized these findings within its sentencing entry. From the trial court‘s statements at the sentencing hearing and the language used in the sentencing entry, it is clear that the trial court complied with
{18} Although Fraley claims to have reformed himself and overcome his addiction to methamphetamine, the trial court‘s consecutive sentencing findings are fully supported by the record. As we have previously recognized, pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor is a serious offense and children are seriously harmed by the mere possession of pornography in which they are depicted. State v. Boggs, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2019-07-114, 2020-Ohio-2881, ¶ 14. “[C]onsumers of child pornography victimize the children depicted in child pornography by enabling and supporting the continued
Individual Sentences
{19} In so holding, we also find that even if Fraley had challenged each sentence individually, we would still find that each sentence imposed was not contrary to law. In State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242, 2020-Ohio-6729, the supreme court held that
{20} We have held that a sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing as set forth in
{21} Here, the record reveals that the trial court considered the criteria in
{22} Because we find no error with regard to the trial court‘s decision to impose consecutive sentences or with regard to the individual prison sentences imposed by the trial court, Fraley‘s second and fourth assignments of error are overruled.
{23} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{24} THE IMPOSITION OF A 31-35 YEAR PRISON SENTENCE CONSTITUTED CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
{25} Fraley‘s third assignment of error argues that his prison sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the sentence he received was grossly disproportionate to his conduct. In so doing, Fraley argues that there was no allegation that he engaged in any sexual conduct with minors and that his conduct was related to his addiction to methamphetamine. He also claims that he accepted “full responsibility” by pleading guilty.
{26} The
{27} “[P]roportionality review in the context of cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to aggregate sentences.” State v. Rowland, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA2019-08-084, 2020-Ohio-2984, ¶ 61. “[I]t is not the aggregate term of incarceration but, rather, the individual sentences that are relevant ***.” State v. Hairston, 118 Ohio St.3d 289, 2008-Ohio-2338, ¶ 22. Therefore, under the
{28} Furthermore, “[i]t is generally accepted that punishments which are prohibited by the
{29} The sentences imposed in this case were all within the authorized sentencing range and the trial court elected not to impose the maximum sentence for multiple charges. “[A] sentence within statutory limitations is not excessive and does not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.” State v. Bosman, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2001-05-101, 2002-Ohio-22, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 85, *3.
{30} Furthermore, nothing about Fraley‘s individual sentences is “grossly disproportionate” to his corresponding crimes. Despite claiming to accept full responsibility, Fraley attempts to minimize his conduct by suggesting that he never engaged in any of the sexual conduct. However, Fraley‘s arguments and suggestions are not appropriate mitigation and undercut his claim that he has accepted full responsibility for his actions and has reformed his ways. Although he may not have physically abused a child, that does not relieve him of responsibility for the multiple and repeated instances involving his possession and sharing of graphic child pornography. Fraley was convicted of multiple second- and fourth-degree felonies for participating in a scheme that enables and supports the continued production of child pornography. As such, we find that the sentences do not shock the conscience, and do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the
{31} Judgment affirmed.
M. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.