State v. WilsonState v. Wilson
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} The defendant-appellant, Nicole Wilson, appeals the February 3, 2021 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, convicting her of two counts of
II. Background
{¶ 2} On March 5, 2020, Nicole Wilson and her husband, Francis Wilson, were indicted on eighteen counts of child endangering. Counts 1 through 9, all third degree felonies, applied specifically to Nicole Wilson, hereinafter identified as the “appellant.”
{¶ 3} The victims in this case, Z.W., aged 16, and F.W., aged 14, are appellant‘s step-daughter and step-son, respectively. Appellant and her husband also have two younger, biological children of their own, who are not the subject of this case.
{¶ 4} At a change of plea hearing, appellant entered a guilty plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford to two violations of
{¶ 5} Had the matter proceeded to trial, the state asserted that it would have shown that appellant forced Z.W. and F.W. to live in the basement of the family home, as a form of punishment, between July 16, 2018 and July 16, 2019. Although the children were allowed to attend school and occasionally to work odd jobs, they were required to live in the basement when at home. According to the record, the door to the basement was locked from the outside, and the basement windows were inoperable. The cinderblock-walled basement was not equipped with a bathroom, and the children were allowed brief, timed use of the bathroom on the ground floor. According to the state, “one or two times
{¶ 6} With respect to Count 4, the state asserted that it would have shown that appellant physically restrained F.W., who is handicapped (autism), in a cruel manner or for a prolonged period of time, that the restraint was excessive and that it created a substantial risk of serious physical harm to him. With respect to Count 5, the state asserted that it would have shown that appellant recklessly used corporal punishment against Z.W. for “minor infractions,” by striking her with a “belt and other instruments” which created a risk of substantial physical harm to her.
{¶ 7} The trial court engaged in an extensive colloquy with appellant, including an explanation that she faced a maximum aggregate sentence of 72 months in prison and a $20,000 fine.
{¶ 8} The trial court found that appellant had been informed of her constitutional rights, that she understood the nature of the charges, the effect of her plea, as well as the maximum penalties which could be imposed, and that she had made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision to withdraw her former plea of not guilty and to tender an Alford plea of guilt. The court accepted appellant‘s plea, made findings of guilt, and ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation (“PSI“).
{¶ 9} At the January 28, 2021 sentencing hearing, appellant‘s counsel urged the court to impose community control in lieu of prison. Counsel cited the absence of any criminal record, appellant‘s “active engagement” in parenting classes, and the fact that she had “suffer[ed] through collateral consequences,” including being “cut off” from her biological children for almost a year, a “brief stint” of confinement, and her full compliance with all court orders during the pendency of the case “all while maintaining gainful employment.” Counsel expressly denied that appellant had acted in a “malicious or abusive” manner and argued that her client merely lacked adequate skills to “parent two special needs teenagers.”
{¶ 10} Appellant also spoke, professing to take “responsibility for any of [her] wrongdoings.” She claimed to love all four of her children equally and blamed her lack of parenting skills and her own “negative upbringing” for any mistakes she had made.
{¶ 11} The state countered that appellant had shown “zero remorse” and had instead called the victims “liars * * * thieves * * * and bedwetters.” And, it noted that F.W. only wet himself when he was awake, and only then “because he was only allowed to use the bathroom at certain times.” As punishment, F.W. was forced to sleep on a “deflated air mattress.” It told the court that, since being removed from the co-defendants, the victims have “become smart, successful and productive citizens despite the defendants’ torment.”
{¶ 13} F.W. told the court that he had been “locked in the basement with no way out * * * for three years.” Referring to a picture of all four siblings in a car, F.W. said “this is how it would look * * * whenever we were in the car[.] * * * [W]e had to be looking out the window [because we were] not allowed to look at our sisters.” As a result
{¶ 14} Before announcing its sentence, the court commented that it had reviewed “over 1300 pages of documentation” and viewed video statements given by the victims and the victims’ younger sisters. The court was “struck” by the victims who, despite being called “untruthful, rebellious and deceitful,” managed to provide “detailed and separate” statements that were “linear, coherent [and] gut wrenching but logical.” The court “marvel[ed]” not just at the victims’ “survival skills” but also at their ability to “progress[] in school after spending hours upon hours upon days locked in a dingy basement, urinating in drains [and] defecating in buckets.”
{¶ 15} With regard to its sentence, the court said,
[The victims] have been let down by their biological parents since their birth. * * * But nothing during that time compares to the last several years of their life.
The remarriage of their father to [appellant] gave a fake appearance of stability that became their new normal. It was also when the intentional abuse started and their father did not protect them. The amount of adverse childhood experiences these children have faced is off the charts. * * * I fear these young people will be maneuvering around damage for the rest of their lives.
Sadly I don‘t know what is more appalling, is it the horrible things that happened to these kids, or the amount of time calls were made to get them help from witnesses, neighbors or others that were too easily waved off because the perpetrators would maintain such a sweet and warm demeanor when inquiries were made[?]
How easy it was to send people away when the stepmother [i.e. the appellant] laments how hard it is to take care of special needs children and a rebellious teen.
The controlling psychological abuse of their rigid stepmother was a minefield that [the victims] were not equipped to succeed in. * * * I will tell you, it‘s the words of one of [the younger biological girls] that confirmed for me that the two of you are monsters. No matter what you
look like on the outside, when one of your sweet babies was asked about her older siblings, her immediate response was, always running. The interviewer asked, to where, and your daughter said, “to the bathroom.” * * * Th[at] [same] child was asked if her brother and sister shared a room, she answered, yes. * * * When asked why [she had never been and did not want to go down there] she stated because my mom will keep me downstairs in the basement. This baby was five years old. * * *
I won‘t give you the dignity of calling you parents because real parents would never intentionally hurt their children the way the two of you chose to do.
[Appellant], you have earned the sentence that the court will be giving, for the lack of conscious you had, and for inflicting physical and psychological abuse on your two stepchildren.
{¶ 16} In its February 3, 2021 journal entry, the trial court sentenced appellant to serve 30 months in prison as to Count 4 and 30 months as to Count 5, to be served consecutively to one another, for an aggregate prison term of 60 months. It also imposed a mandatory three-year term of post-release control, as to each count.
{¶ 17} Appellant raises the following assignment of error:
[T]he trial court did not give proper consideration to the statutory directives of
O.R.C. 2929.11 andO.R.C. 2929.12 in ordering her to serve a five years [sic] OCRC term of incarceration.
IV. Law and Analysis
{¶ 18} We review a challenge to a felony sentence under
(a) That the record does not support the sentencing court‘s findings under division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section 2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929.20 of the Revised Code, whichever, if any, is relevant;
(b) That the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
{¶ 19} Appellant does not complain that her sentence violated any of the statutes identified in
{¶ 20} Here, appellant argues that the trial court‘s sentence is “contrary to law” because the trial court did not “give proper consideration” to the purposes and principles of sentencing in
{¶ 21} Although a trial court must comply with
{¶ 22} Moreover, under Jones, an appellate court may not “independently weigh the evidence in the record and substitute its judgment for that of the trial court concerning the sentence that best reflects compliance with
{¶ 23} Because
V. Conclusion
{¶ 24} For these reasons, appellant‘s assignment of error is not well taken, and we affirm the February 2, 2021 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. Wilson is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J. JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, 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/.