STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JASON T. SHONTEE, Defendant-Appellant
Appellate Case No. 27393
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
July 14, 2017
2017-Ohio-5831
Trial Court Case No. 16-CR-1878 (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
MICHAEL MILLS, Atty. Reg. No. 0092133, 371 West First Street, 2nd Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
HALL, P.J.
{¶ 1} Jason Shontee appeals from his November 30, 2016 conviction and sentence to 21 years in prison for the offenses of one count of voluntary manslaughter, a first-degree felony, with an accompanying
The Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} Appellant admitted to police that on June 13, 2016 he shot Robert Hildebrand three or four times in the chest after the two had engaged in an argument. Hildebrand had complained to the police two days earlier that Hildebrand had video surveillance of Shontee breaking out windows at the apartment complex where Shontee said they were both “squatters.” Shontee claimed that at the time of the shooting, Hildebrand had a “nail stick” (a stick with a nail protruding for picking up cans) and Hildebrand threatened Shontee not to come back to the apartment or Hildebrand would kill him. Shontee claimed he lost control, and because he was so angry, he took out his gun and shot Hildebrand, killing him.
{¶ 3} Shontee was indicted for two counts of murder, the proximate result of committing felonious assault (deadly weapon) and the proximate result of committing
{¶ 4} On November 8, 2016 Shontee appeared in court with counsel, and a plea agreement was recited on the record. Shontee would plead guilty by bill of information to voluntary manslaughter, a first-degree felony, with both a three-year firearm specification and an RVO specification. Shontee would also plead guilty to the indicted charge of having weapons while under a disability. The remaining indicted charges would be dismissed. The agreement called for the maximum prison sentence of 11 years on the manslaughter charge, a required consecutive three years for the firearm specification and a mandatory consecutive sentence to be determined by the court for the RVO specification. “The agreed sentencing range is that he receive between 15 to 21 years; each side will take their position with respect to what sentence he would receive in that range.” (Plea Transcript p. 4-5). Shontee also agreed that he would pay restitution with respect to funeral expenses.
{¶ 5} The trial court then reviewed with Shontee the bill of information and waiver of indictment forms that he signed during the proceeding. The trial court scrupulously complied with
{¶ 6} Shontee and his attorney signed entry of waiver and plea forms that included the plea agreement, the rights he was waiving, the applicable penalties, and post-release control. The court determined he understood the nature of the offense, the effect of his pleas, and that he made his pleas voluntarily. A presentence investigation report was ordered.
{¶ 7} On November 29, 2016, Shontee was sentenced to 11 years in prison for the manslaughter charge, consecutive to the three-year firearm specification, consecutive to seven years for the RVO specification and concurrent to three years for the WUD charge, for an aggregate sentence of 21 years in prison. The court imposed five years of mandatory post-release control for the manslaughter charge and three years of discretionary post-release control for the weapons under disability charge.
Potential Assignments of Error
{¶ 8} In the brief, counsel suggests that this court review three potential
{¶ 9} We simply find nothing in the record to support an argument that counsel was ineffective. There were several witnesses to the shooting. Shontee admitted he shot and killed the victim. His only explanation was that he was angry and lost control. Counsel negotiated a plea agreement that eliminated a potential life sentence. An assignment of error that trial counsel was ineffective would be frivolous.
{¶ 10} Likewise, we find no reasonable argument can be made that the trial court erred by sentencing Shontee to 21 years in prison when he agreed that his sentencing range would be from 15 to 21 years.
{¶ 11} It would also be frivolous to assign as error that the trial court failed to comply with
Anders review
{¶ 12} We have conducted a thorough and complete examination of all the proceedings to decide whether this appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), citing Anders at 744. We have reviewed the docket, the various filings, the written transcript of the plea and sentencing hearings, the presentence investigation report, and the sentencing entry. We have found no non-frivolous issues for review. Accordingly, the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
FROELICH, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck
Michael Scarpelli
Michael Mills
Hon. Mary K. Huffman