State v. MockensturmState v. Mockensturm
W. Alex Smith, for appellant.
*****
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant, Brianna Mockensturm, appeals the July 26, 2019 judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing her to an aggregate prison term of 16 years following her conviction on two counts of involuntary manslaughter. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 3} A.V. is the victim in case No. 2019CR0115. In 2018, A.V. was enrolled in treatment at a drug rehabilitation center. While he was there, Mockensturm sent him texts and Facebook messages encouraging him to leave rehab and start using drugs again. After approximately 100 days of treatment, Mockensturm convinced A.V. to leave and move back in with his family. He left treatment on or about June 5, 2018.
{¶ 4} That same day, Mockensturm and J.P.—Mockensturm’s boyfriend and the victim in case No. 2018CR0535—went to visit A.V. at his family’s apartment in Bowling Green, Ohio. Mockensturm and A.V. spent approximately one-half hour alone in his room while J.P. waited on the porch. Mockensturm and J.P. eventually left. The next morning, A.V.’s brother—who came home to congratulate A.V. on his drug treatment—found A.V. dead in his bedroom, along with a bag of drugs in his pocket that contained a mixture of heroin and fentanyl. Mockensturm denied that she gave A.V. the drugs. J.P., however, admitted that he and Mockensturm had purchased heroin just before they went to visit A.V. The coroner determined A.V. died as a result of an overdose of fentanyl and norfentanyl.
{¶ 6} According to surveillance video obtained from Toledo Mold & Die from the previous day, Mockensturm and J.P. met outside the building and sat under an awning where they were not visible to video cameras. J.P. later entered a bathroom inside the building. His body was discovered the following morning. The coroner determined his cause of death to be an accidental overdose of heroin and fentanyl. Mockensturm’s DNA was found on the syringe.
{¶ 7} According to texts and Facebook messages between Mockensturm and J.P., Mockensturm regularly traveled to Toledo, Ohio, to purchase drugs that she sold to others—including J.P. The messages demonstrate that J.P. purchased heroin from Mockensturm the day before his body was discovered.
{¶ 8} On November 21, 2018, Mockensturm was indicted in case No. 2018CR0535—relating to victim J.P.—with the following charges: two counts of trafficking in heroin in violation of
{¶ 9} On March 21, 2019, Mockensturm was indicted in case No. 2019CR0115—relating to victim A.V.—with the following charges: one count of possession of criminal tools in violation of
{¶ 10} Following negotiations with the state, Mockensturm appeared for a change of plea hearing on June 10, 2019. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Mockensturm agreed to enter a guilty plea to the involuntary manslaughter count in each case. In exchange for her guilty plea, the state agreed to request dismissal of all other counts. The trial court
{¶ 11} Mockensturm appeared for sentencing on July 22, 2019. The trial court imposed an eight-year prison term on each of Mockensturm’s involuntary manslaughter convictions. The prison terms were ordered to be served consecutively resulting in an aggregate sixteen-year prison term. The trial court dismissed all remaining counts in both cases at the state’s request. Mockensturm’s sentence was journalized on July 26, 2019. Mockensturm timely appealed the judgment in each case. On March 26, we ordered the appeals to be consolidated and Mockensturm now asserts the following errors for our review:
- Appellant was sentenced contrary to the overriding purposes of felony sentencing in
R.C. 2929.11 . - Appellant was sentenced to consecutive sentences contrary to
R.C. 2929.14 .
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 12} We review felony sentences under
{¶ 13} The burden is on the appellant to identify clear and convincing evidence in the record that their sentence was erroneously imposed. State v. Torres, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-18-008, 2019-Ohio-434, ¶ 6.
A. Mockensturm’s sentences are not contrary to law.
{¶ 14} In her first assignment of error, Mockensturm argues that the trial court failed to comply with the overriding purposes of felony sentencing because her individual eight-year sentences, as well as her “total 16 year sentence,” are not the “minimum sanctions” that would satisfy the purposes of felony sentencing under
{¶ 15} To the extent that Mockensturm is attempting to challenge the overall length of her aggregate 16-year sentence under
{¶ 16} Mockensturm also argues that her individual eight-year sentences are contrary
{¶ 17} Lastly, Mockensturm argues that her sentence is inconsistent with that of her codefendant who received a two-year prison term for a lesser-degree felony. “‘Consistency’ is a consideration under
{¶ 18} In sum, Mockensturm has failed to identify clear and convincing evidence that her sentence is contrary to law. The errors that she alleges the trial court committed in its consideration of the
B. The record supports the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences.
{¶ 19} In her second assignment of error, Mockensturm argues that her consecutive sentences are contrary to law because the record does not support the trial court’s findings under
If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public, and if the court also finds any of the following:
(a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section
2929.16 ,2929.17 , or2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release control for a prior offense.(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender’s conduct.
(c) The offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶ 22} Although a trial court must make the findings required by
{¶ 23} Here, although the trial court did not explicitly reference
{¶ 24} We have reviewed the record to determine whether the record supports the trial court’s findings under
{¶ 25} As the trial court noted, Mockensturm demonstrated a pattern of drug abuse and participated in organized criminal activity by trafficking drugs and, ultimately, by providing drugs that ultimately killed two people. Mockensturm sold these drugs to both victims despite being aware of their drug abuse issues and, as the trial court recognized, Mockensturm used her relationship with the victims to facilitate these offenses. Indeed, Mockensturm coaxed A.V. out of rehab and then supplied him with a fatal dose of heroin and fentanyl on the day he was released from treatment. A.V.’s family believed that his
{¶ 26} We find that this record fully supports the trial court’s findings under
{¶ 27} Given that the trial court made all three of the necessary findings under
III. Conclusion
{¶ 28} We find both of Mockensturm’s assignments of error not well-taken. We, therefore, affirm the July 26, 2019 judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas. Mockensturm is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R.24.
Judgment affirmed.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J.
JUDGE
CONCUR.
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/.