Sentencing for another person convicted in the murder of Painesville man

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Alright. Thank you for your seat, everybody. [00:00:12] Speaker 2: Ms. Blake? Thank you, Your Honor. We're here today in the state of Ohio versus Avion Gaines, case number 25, CR 964. Your Honor, the matter is set for sentencing today. Previously, we did have a jury trial of this matter, and the defendant was found guilty of a number of offenses. A pre-sentence report was ordered and has been completed. The state of Ohio has had an opportunity to review that pre-sentence report. The defendant is present. He is represented by counsel, Ms. Mary Catherine Corrigan. Your Honor, the state of Ohio is prepared to proceed to sentencing here today. And if the court would like, I could outline the guilty findings that occurred as a result of the verdict in the jury trial. If the court would like me to do that at this time. [00:00:59] Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Go ahead, please. [00:01:01] Speaker 2: Your Honor, as a result of the jury trial in this matter, the defendant was found guilty of count two, complicity to aggravated murder and unclassified felony. He was found guilty of count three, complicity to murder, also an unclassified felony, and count four, murder, an unclassified felony. The defendant was found guilty of complicity to felonious assault in count five, a felony of the second degree. The defendant was found guilty of count six, complicity to felonious assault, also a felony of the second degree. The defendant was found guilty of count seven, complicity to felonious assault, a felony of the second degree. The defendant was found guilty of complicity to felonious assault, a felony of the second degree, and count eight. Additionally, Your Honor, count nine, kidnapping, a felony of the first degree, the defendant was found guilty. In count ten, kidnapping, a felony of the first degree, the defendant was found guilty. The defendant was found guilty of count eleven, kidnapping, a felony of the first degree. The defendant was found guilty of count twelve, kidnapping, a felony of the first degree. The defendant was further found guilty of count thirteen, kidnapping, a felony of the first degree, as well as count fourteen, kidnapping, a felony of the first degree. Your Honor, with respect to all of those counts, there were one-year firearm specifications attached to those as well. The defendant was found guilty of the attached firearm specifications as well. Your Honor, at the appropriate time, the state is prepared to outline its position with respect to merger whenever the court would like me to do that. [00:02:43] Speaker 1: I think now is at the appropriate time. [00:02:44] Speaker 2: Okay, thank you, Your Honor. So, with respect to merger, in this case, Your Honor, the state of Ohio would cite to state v. Ruff 2015, Ohio 995, which I think the court is familiar, essentially, with the three-part merger test as it relates to the act itself, the import or harm, and the animus and/or motivation for the defendant's conduct based on state v. Ruff, Your Honor, the state's position is merger would, uh, essentially be outlined as follows. Counts four and three would merge into count two. State of Ohio would elect to proceed on count two. Count nine would merge into count ten, and the state would elect to proceed on count ten. Count eleven would merge into count twelve, the state would elect to proceed on count twelve, and count thirteen would merge into count fourteen. The state would elect to proceed on count fourteen. So, with respect to merger, Your Honor, that's the state proceeding on count two. Count five, count six, count seven, count eight, count ten, count twelve, and count fourteen, the state believes under Ruff that, with respect to the felonious assault counsels, they're all separate victims. With respect to the kidnapping offenses, there are two separate victims, and also the decedent, in this case, Will Sheffey. However, under Ruff, the state has, the state believes that there's a separate animus, a separate import, and certainly separate conduct for each one of those offenses. The harm that resulted was different in every one of them. As a result, the state believes that those offenses do not merge within themselves in any way. Additionally, the state is aware that the court has to address any merger with respect to firearms. The state would cite to state v. Beatty, or Beatty, 2024, Ohio, five, six, eight, four, and ask that the court proceed under the same transaction test with respect to firearms, or firearm specifications, I should say, and the state would ask that the court elect two counts to proceed on. That would essentially mean those firearm specifications would be consecutive to each other. The state would suggest count two and count 12 or 14 with respect to the firearm specifications, Your Honor. Thank you. [00:05:21] Speaker 1: All right, thank you. So, Ms. Corrigan, first of all, do you agree with the merger analysis? [00:05:25] Ms. Mary Catherine Corrigan: I do agree with the merger analysis, Your Honor. Okay, thank you. Including the firearms ones. [00:05:29] Speaker 1: Would you like to stand on behalf of your comment? [00:05:33] Ms. Mary Catherine Corrigan: Thank you so much, Your Honor. Your Honor, at this juncture, we are asking the court to impose concurrent terms of incarceration and impose a minimum sentence of 22 years to life in prison. In support of that position, I would ask that the court look first to the Ohio Revised Code, Section 29-29-11, Purposes and Principles of Felony Sentencing. The purposes and principles of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offenders and to punish the offenders and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines can accomplish those purposes. Your Honor, in this situation, I believe that the minimum sanctions available to the court, which is 22 years to life, is more than appropriate to accomplish the purposes and principles of felony sentencing. Specifically, Your Honor, my client is 19 years old. If you were to impose a term of incarceration of 22 years to life in prison, that would indicate that the earliest he would be released from prison, he would be approximately 41 years old. I have been working in the post-conviction field for many years, and I have never once seen somebody be released at a first parole hearing. He would more likely be well into his middle age, if not elderly, should he ever be released from prison, if his first parole eligibility is in 22 years. That absolutely protects the public from any future crime by Mr. Gaines. Additionally, at that juncture, even if he were to serve only the 22 years, Mr. Gaines would have spent more than half of his life incarcerated at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. That is all of the relevant time that he would have had to be young, that he would have had to build a family for himself, that he would have had to build a career for himself. He would have come out having spent more than half of his life incarcerated, and that is absolutely a punishment that can be accomplished using the minimum sanction available to this court, which is, say, 22 years to life. And again, of course, the last principle and purpose, which is to promote the effect of rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions. Your Honor, my client has a meaningful opportunity of parole, which is to say, beginning at 22 years to life, he has an incentive. To take the program, the programming available to him through the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, and to build a life for himself, not only on the inside of the institution, but an ability to come out and be a productive member of society on the outside. So with that, Your Honor, I do believe that a 22-year-to-life sentence would accomplish the goals required by 29-29-11. I then ask the court to look to 29-29-12, which is the seriousness and recidivism factors, specifically under subsection B of that code. The sentencing court shall consider all of the following that apply to the offender, the offense, or the victim, in constituting an offense to become more serious than normally for this offense. Obviously, Your Honor, at this juncture, I'm speaking primarily to the aggravated murder count. However, I will address the subsequent victims as well. Your Honor, the physical or mental injury suffered by the victim of the offense was exasperated because of the physical or mental age of the condition or of the victim. In this situation, we were dealing with young people. They were not too young to have been involved in this. They had guns of their own regarding Brent, Will, as well as Jeffrey Lee. And the innocent bystanders that were struck were, again, of normal age. They were not elderly nor were they children. Therefore, subsection B1 is not met. Obviously, subsection B2 is met as it relates to William Shuffey. And we would not demean the offense by indicating that it is not met in regards to William Shuffey. However, in regards to Brent Adams, Jeffrey Lee, as well as the innocent bystanders, I think with the innocent bystanders, you don't even really get serious physical harm despite having been shot. They were injured with a deadly weapon. However, the one person pulled the projectile out of himself himself. And Jeffrey Lee's testimony was that he thinks about this, but it did not amount to anything resembling serious psychological issues. He left that scene unharmed and had absolutely no economic harm. And, of course, unfortunately, due to intervening circumstances, we did not hear from Brent Adams. So we do know he left the scene without serious physical harm. There's no manner through which economic harm could be argued, and we can't speak to his psychological harm. Therefore, I do not believe that that is met in regards to any of the victims but for William Shuffey. Number three, the victim died by suicide as a result of the offense. Simply put, did not get met in this case. Number four, the offender held a public office or position of trust. Again, that is not met in this case. This has nothing to do with the work. Nor did our five or six, which also relate to an offender's occupation. Those are likewise not met and do not elevate this crime to be more serious. We next look to the offender's relationship with the victim, facilitated the offense. Your Honor, this court sat through the entire trial, including my opening statements and my closing statements. While I do believe that the offender's relationship with potentially Aila Oberstar had something to do with this crime, and potentially Avionte Atterbury's relationship with William Shuffey had something to do with this crime, I don't believe that the evidence demonstrated that my client's relationship with William Shuffey had anything to do with this crime. In fact, on cross-examination, I believe he told Ms. Blake, yeah, I thought his song was pretty good. It was one of his better ones. I think that in this situation, I think that in this situation, these two parties were linked to a number of different people, but their relationship with each other had very little to do with it. Obviously, there was no relationship with the innocent bystanders, nor Jeffrey Lee, who testified that he had never met these people before, and again, I don't believe that there was any testimony at all that he had any sort of a relationship with Brent Adams. And so, because of the merger analysis, I do think that how these factors apply to the different victims are relevant in this analysis as well, and I don't think that that factor is met insofar as any of the five victims. The offender committed this offense for hire or as part of an organized criminal activity. Absolutely not met in this case. And the offender was motivated by prejudice based on race, ethnic background. Again, that wasn't even alleged, so that was not met in this case. And, of course, number 10, the offenses in violation of 29-19-25 or had to do with a household member and parenting, and that is simply, again, not even alleged to have met. So, when you look at the seriousness factors under 29-29-12-B, the only one that could even have been possibly met in this case is B-2, and I believe that argument is sufficient to establish that B-2 was only met in regards to the decedent, William Shockey. Next, I ask that the court look to 29-29-12-C, and I do always argue this, Your Honor. I think that the code is inherently unfair to criminal defendants. There are only four ways in which a criminal defendant can minimize their own conduct, and ten ways in which the state can elevate their conduct. I don't know how relevant that is in this case, given that it is our position that only B-2 was only partially met to make this more serious. But in making a case less serious, the court should consider whether the victim induced or facilitated the offense. My client's position, my client's testimony, has always been that they went to Rainforest Village that day, intending to fight, and that the victim group, William Shockey, Brent Adams, brought guns to a fist fight. So I do think that that element is met, certainly in regards to any counts relating to Will or Brent. I do not believe that that is met. I would not allege that that is met regarding Jeffrey Lee or the innocent bystanders. In committing the offense, the offender acted under strong provocation. In this situation, Your Honor, while my client was not alleged, specifically as to the complicity to aggravated murder count, to have been the primary offender, his brother, Avionte Atterbury, I believe is a primary offender, and I do believe the primary offender acted under strong provocation. This situation had been going on all day at the court against after the trial. The victim group brought guns to a fist fight, then they drove past my client and his brother's grandmother's house. So I do think that if you cannot find that Avionte acted under strong provocation, and I don't think you should because it is our position, he did not act. I think in this situation, you could certainly find that Avionte Atterbury did act under strong provocation, which again, meets this element. In committing the offense, the offender did not cause or expect to cause physical harm to a person or property. Avionte did, again, waive his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and he testified on his own behalf that they were expecting to, quote, catch work. That is to say, go fist to cuffs with each other. And I do not believe that he expected to cause any physical harm to any of these people, even if they were engaged in a physical wrestling-type brawl. And then lastly, there are substantial grounds to mitigate the offender's conduct, although all of the grounds are not enough to constitute a defense. In this case, Your Honor, we absolutely believe the offender's conduct to have been mitigated and enough to constitute a defense. Obviously, we had an entire trial. It is our position that my client's involvement in this case ceased before Lakeisha Jackson, Avionte Atterbury, and Zyedio Jackson exited their vehicle calls on North State Street. So I don't know that that is entirely met in this case because we do believe we mounted a full defense. Your Honor, regarding the imposition of consecutive sentences in this case, obviously, I have argued substantially for a minimum sentence of 22 years to life. However, it is not lost on me that there are many counts that could be run consecutive in this situation. Judge, in order to impose consecutive findings, this court would need to find that consecutive findings are necessary to protect the public or punish the offender, Your Honor, I would incorporate the arguments I made a moment ago relating to 29, 29, 11, and that the sentences would not be disproportionate to the offense committed. Your Honor, my client was convicted on that aggravated murder count of a complicity theory. He is absolutely not alleged to have been the primary aggressor on that particular count, which is where the state has elected to proceed at sentencing. Your Honor, I've also made arguments as to why these crimes are less serious, and so I do believe that consecutive sentences would be disproportionate to the offense committed. And then when you look to the factors that you must find one of the three in 29, 29, 14, C, which are the offender committed one or more of the offenses while awaiting trial or under sentencing or under sentencing or post-release control, under C4A, I apologize. That one is most clearly not met, the last one, C4C, the offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender. The offender, my client has no substantial criminal history, in fact, I don't even believe he has a traffic ticket. Certainly, C4C is not met. As such, this court must look then to C4B. At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as one or more courses of conduct, and the harm committed by two or more of the multiple offenses was so great or so unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses as part of the course of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of his conduct. And I simply think for all of the reasons I made regarding 29, 29, 11, and 29, 29, 12, that the court cannot in good conscience find that 29, 29, 14, C4B fits in this situation. There certainly, it is our position that the day was separated in different instances and that my client's conduct ceased prior to the homicide of Will Sheffey and the kidnapping of Brent Adams and Jeffrey Lee. Your Honor, as such, I've gone through all the legal justifications for my request for 22 years to life. However, at this juncture, I do want to take a second, Judge, and indicate to the court that, as again, you sat through this trial, you saw who Avion was, you saw how hard it was for him to hear some of the testimony, and to face the reality. Judge, when we were in jury selection, a juror said to us, and it's something that's stuck with me for the last three months, kids don't seem to understand that death is forever. And I think that in the course of this trial, Avion learned a lot about the realities of the position he was in, the realities of Will Sheffey's life, and the life that his family is going to be forced to live without Will moving forward. And I think that my client took the stand, he waived his Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent, and he said, he told the court, I never meant for this to happen. This is not what I thought was going to happen. And I think that if you looked even to the testimony of Solomon Gasson, you would see that he also seemed to have been taken off guard by how far out of hands they went. And I would ask that the court take into account the genuine remorse that my client has expressed while maintaining his complete innocence for the loss of life in this case, specifically as it relates to William Sheffey. Your Honor, Avion Gaines is 19 years old. He graduated from high school. His parents are divorced. He was raised primarily by his mother, who has been in and out of the prison system at least once prior to this case. Judge, I think that my client was, I don't want to use the word victim in this situation, but to some extent victimized by his circumstances. His mother is also a defendant in this case. His aunt is a defendant in this case. His cousins, his older brothers, all these people that he lived up to, his mother's girlfriend, essentially his stepmother, they're all involved in this. My client has tried so hard to elevate himself out of this life that these people have built for themselves, but this is who he had to help him grow up. Roberta Gaines, Lakeisha Jackson, Xavier Avionte, and those are not any sort of aroma for an 18 year old child to look up to to see that is who he had. As you can see, Your Honor, as I indicated, he did waive his right to remain silent. He did. He said it. He said it right in the pre-sentence investigation. I never meant for this to happen. I'm sorry for the loss of will. And there's not much more I can say. As I said, indicated, you sat through the trial. We believe my client continues to assert his innocence. We are at the appropriate time going to ask that the court allow me to withdraw as counsel and appoint new counsel for appeal. And I can do that at the end of the hearing if you'd like. But not withstanding his desire to continue to fight this case, my client is genuinely sorry for the loss of Wilshoky's life. I'd ask that the court continue to consider that my client was not the shooter in this case. Thank you. I believe you'd like to make a mistake. [00:23:00] Speaker 1: Okay. So, Mr. Gaines, before your sentence, you do an opportunity to address the court. What would you like to tell me? [00:23:12] Speaker 4: Your Honor, I want to start by saying I'm not very good at words. I'm speaking in front of people, especially in the circumstances of this series. This is why I chose to write this letter instead of trying to speak freely. First, I want to acknowledge the life that was lost. My family lost a son, a brother, someone they love deeply. And I think about that often, and I don't want anyone to think I take that loss lightly. No matter what happens to me, another family is hurting, and I understand that. I just want to apologize and let it be known that this is not my intentions. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:23:45] Speaker 1: Thank you. You know, one thing I never understood is you said you wanted to fight, you wanted to fight. How tall are you? How tall are you? How tall are you? Yeah. About 5'9", 175? 5'9", something like that. Yeah, about 175. Mr. Sheffy is about 5'3", 103. Uh, yeah. Yeah, that's about how big he was. I mean, he was a green, but the man was a green. [00:24:11] Speaker 4: The man was a green. That's why we met. [00:24:15] Speaker 1: I think I just never understood that. You said you wanted to fight, you wanted to fight, you wanted to fight. Well, I mean, how I see that, it'd be equivalent of NFL linebackers saying, "Mr. Gaines, you want to fight?" It wouldn't be much of a fight, would it? I mean, he wanted it also as well. Apparently he didn't want it because he ran from you all day, didn't he? He didn't want it. He didn't want it. [00:24:37] Speaker ?: He didn't want it. He didn't want it. [00:24:39] Speaker 1: Anything else you'd like to tell me? No, you're out. Thank you. Uh, I will say on behalf of the defendant, I received a couple, frankly, very powerful and, um, uh, really a couple of the best letters I've seen written on behalf of the defendant, if not the best ever, by Ms. Tove and Mr. Johnson. I really appreciate those letters. Um, I did read those and, uh, before I go to the state, I just wanted to acknowledge that. So thank you for submitting those letters on Mr. Gaines' behalf. Anything else from the defense before I go to the state? [00:24:58] Speaker ?: No, you're not, I would just ask to be heard on the appellate issues at the closing of the hearing. [00:24:58] Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Blaine? Thank you. Thank you, your honor. Uh, the state is prepared to speak to sentencing here this morning. Uh, I missed Tove and Mr. Johnson. I really appreciate those letters. Uh, I did read those and, uh, before I go to the state, I just wanted to acknowledge that. So thank you for submitting those letters on Mr. Gaines' behalf. Anything else from the defense before I go to the state? [00:25:18] Ms. Mary Catherine Corrigan: No, your honor. I would just ask to be heard on the appellate issues at the closing of the hearing. Okay. [00:25:23] Speaker 1: Thank you. [00:25:24] Speaker ?: Ms. Blaine? Thank you, your honor. [00:25:26] Speaker 2: Uh, the state is prepared to speak to sentencing here this morning. However, there are members of the victim's family present in the back of the courtroom, and I do know a few of them would like to speak if the court's inclined to let them speak. Uh, the state would defer comment until the victim's family has had an opportunity to speak if the court's inclined to proceed that way. Yeah, I think so. [00:25:47] Speaker 1: So whoever would like to speak, please stand up, state your name so the court reporter can get that down. And then, um, okay. So go ahead. Hello. [00:25:56] Speaker 5: Opposite. Please adjust the court. Oh, okay. [00:25:59] Speaker 1: If I may say something to Avion. [00:26:00] Speaker 5: No, please adjust the court, please. I forgive Avion because he knows not. God says we should forgive. And I forgive Avion for that. [00:26:04] Speaker 1: However, he was born into a bloodline of bullies, from the grandmother to his parents. [00:26:05] Speaker 5: His mother, I should say, not his parents, his mother, I should say, not his parents, his mother. They didn't allow his father to be in his life as he should have. Avion tried multiple times to fight Will, not just on this day. He's pulled up to my daughter's house multiple times to fight Will. Will was loved. Will had a loving family. He loved his friends and he was loved by this community. not just on this day. He's pulled up to my daughter's house multiple times to fight Will. Will was loved. Will had a loving family. He loved his friends, and he was loved by this community. Will had a very good life. It ended young, but he enjoyed life. He traveled this world. He'd been in salt water. He swam with the sharks, which you will never do at the end. And Will, that song, I'm just flabbergasted that anybody would let a rap song get to them that bad. But he lived up to it because he deserves no second chances. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:27:30] Speaker 1: All right, thank you. Anybody else? [00:27:35] Speaker 6: Your Honor, my name is Melissa McKinney. I'm a bonus aunt to William Sheffey, Jr. On June 7, 2025, my family and I was at a wedding, having a good time until I got a phone call saying they shot Will. My heart sank to my stomach. I started to have an anxiety attack, telling myself, no, no, no, just breathe. When we arrived to the scene, my husband, son, and I got out of the car, and we knew so many familiar faces. One being William Sheffey's younger sister, who grabbed my son, hugged him, screaming, and killed my brother. At that moment, I just knew. I can still hear his sister scream from that night. It's one I will never forget. When I close my eyes, I can see Will's car sitting there with the headlights on. That'll be forever stuck with me. Losing Will has changed my family's life. My son was 12 at the time. He loved playing video games with Will, and Will coming over just to talk to him about life. He won't ever get to have that again. We don't get to have any more family dinners with Will, or even holidays. There's an emptiness in our home, in our hearts, that have forever been impacted. Losing someone who truly loves being around family and friends changes you forever. Our hearts will forever be broken. William will forever be missed. Talked about and remembered for what he truly was. A great young man who was loved by so many. Thank you. [00:29:01] Speaker 1: Thank you. Anybody else? [00:29:06] Speaker 7: Good morning. My name is Carlene Smith. Will and my son, Keyshawn, were best friends in second grade. They played sports together, went to prom together, and graduated together. They literally hung up every day. The devastating impact that the loss of Will has had on my life and the lives of those who love him. No parent should ever have to bury their child. The day Will was taken from us changed my life forever. Will was more than a victim in this case. He was a son, a brother, a friend, and a person who was loved deeply. He had hopes, dreams, and a future that was taken away. I miss his smile, his voice, and the simple memories we share together. Those members are all we have now. Judge, I ask you to give A the honor, the maximum for what he did to William. Thank you. [00:30:05] Speaker 1: Thank you. Anybody else? [00:30:11] Speaker 2: The state of Ohio is asking for the following prison term in this case. The state is asking that you impose an aggregate minimum prison term of 70 years to 75.5 years to life in prison. And the state would ask that you do that as follows. With respect to count two, complicity to aggravated murder, the state is asking for 30 years to life. Count five, complicity to felonious assault, the state is asking that you impose eight years. On count six, complicity to felonious assault, the state is asking that you impose eight years. On count seven, complicity to felonious assault, the state is asking for an eight-year prison term. On count eight, complicity to felonious assault, the state is asking for an eight-year prison term. On count ten, kidnapping, the state is asking that you impose 11 years in prison. On count twelve, kidnapping, the state is asking for an 11-year prison term. And on count fourteen, kidnapping, the state is asking for an 11-year prison term. Your Honor, the state requests that the prison terms on counts two, seven, eight, twelve, and fourteen all be served consecutively to each other, as well as the firearm specifications on count two and another count at the court's election. Again, the state would suggest either count twelve or count fourteen. The state would request that the prison terms on count five, six, and ten be served concurrently to each other and concurrent to the prison term imposed on counts two, seven, eight, twelve, and fourteen. Again, Your Honor, that is a prison term. And again, the court does have to elect a most serious qualifying offense under the Reagan-Tokes Act as a result of that. If the court does that on one of the kidnappings, that would be for a cumulative or aggregate total of a minimum term of 70 to 75.5 years to a maximum of life in prison. Your Honor, it continues to astound the state to hear not only the defendant today, but the defendant group in general in these cases continue to suggest that Will Sheffey wanted this. That has been a prevailing theme in all of these cases. And here we are at sentencing. And here we are again, hearing that Will wanted this. What we saw was very, very different. The defendant, he is the reason this conduct started on June 7th. He engaged in a day-long course of conduct that involved stalking Will Sheffey. And when Will would not comply with what the defendant wanted to do, the defendant escalated his conduct. He escalated the number of people he had in support of him. And he escalated this to firearms. Seemingly because he was upset about a song or Will being with his ex-girlfriend or even the clothes that he was wearing and which Will would make jokes about. Your Honor, throughout the course of the day, the defendant involved himself and, again, was the lead in multiple acts of violence directed at Will and his passengers. And speaking specifically about the final moments of Will's life, it was the defendant that set that into motion through his communications with Will Sheffey. And then the defendant got into his own car. He was a driver. He embarked upon roughly a mile and a half pursuit of Will from an opposite direction so that he could corner him with the help of his family. And when he did that, Your Honor, he drove head-on at Will Sheffey, at Erie and Rockwood, certainly forcing him and restraining his liberty. It is the reason Will was forced down Rockwood. And if that wasn't enough, the defendant completed this behavior by blocking Will from behind and providing a firearm to his family member, Zyver Jackson. The defendant behaved as though he and his family were in charge of Painesville City and the law was whatever they wanted it to be. And it was Will Sheffey's job to comply. Your Honor, the state sees this very differently than the defense, and I do respect Ms. Corrigan's arguments, but there's a complete lack of remorse here. Even today, we hear that Will wanted this. The defendant appears most sorry for what he himself has lost, his own life, and the opportunities that he won't get to pursue now. Throughout the pre-sentence report process and through his comments here today, he has never once used the name Will or Brent. And these are people that he knew his whole life. He knew Will Sheffey his whole life. These are Painesville City kids. They knew each other. There's a disregard for the victims in this case and a disregard for the law and a disregard for the Painesville Police Department. Certainly in the shared purpose that he had with his family, not only did Avion Gaines participate in the murder of Will Sheffey, but he victimized Brent Adams, Jeffrey Lee, Alejandro Gonzalez Ramirez, and Juan Padilla Reynoso, as well as the general public, who were just trying to go about their Saturday night in the city. The defendant organized with his family to bring about a certain result. He mobilized. He procured a firearm to engage in this event. That is not throwing hands. The defendant's relationship with the victim most certainly facilitated this offense. It is, in fact, his relationship with Will Sheffey that was most upsetting to him. And, Your Honor, the harm is the most extreme form of harm that the court, I believe, can see. The harm is far-reaching. Not only did it end Will Sheffey's life, but it changed the life of Brent Adams forever. And when you talk about the harm, Your Honor, I don't think the court has to look very far to see the harm that Brent suffered and the agony that Brent, one of Will's very best friends, was in on the video and on dash cam, and it was captured shortly after this incident. That is an agony that Brent never recovered from. This changed the life of Jeffrey Lee. This changed the life of Alejandro and Juan, two people just trying to go about their Saturday nights. We sit here and we talk about when the defendant should be eligible for parole, when he should be given an opportunity to have the chance to show that he is successfully rehabilitated, and when he may be able to make a contribution to the general public again. Well, Will Sheffey will never get that chance. The decisions the defendant and his family made took away that opportunity. And as far as the state is concerned, the defendant is deserving of a sentence commensurate with the loss of Will's life and the harm that he imposed upon Brent Adams, Jeff Lee, Alejandro, Gonzalez Ramirez, Juan Padilla, Reynoso, and the general public. Will's life ended at 20, and we're talking about whether the defendant should have a chance to resume his life at 40. The court saw a number of civilian witnesses testify throughout the course of this trial as well, Your Honor, and I can tell you that was only a small fraction of the number of people whose lives were impacted by the defendant and his family's behavior on this day. There was a significant number of people that the Painesville Police Department and the state of Ohio spoke to during the course of this investigation and in trial preparation on these cases. Every single person expressed fear. Every single person expressed uneasiness and unrest that this could happen in a community like Painesville City. It's a small, close-knit community. A community that has long relied on each other and the good folks and the good neighbors of the community to do the right thing. The Gaines, Atterbury, Jackson family took it upon themselves to make Painesville City their own on the roadways and in their conduct on June 7th. And thankfully, because of the Painesville Police Department's around-the-clock efforts, not only were they apprehended, but the city is calm and justice has been restored and peace. And that is solely because of the Painesville Police Department's efforts that had absolutely nothing to do with the Gaines family or the defendant who have continued to behave as if they were entitled to engage in this behavior. Your Honor, the conduct and the attitude, quite frankly, as we sit here at sentencing today, is still shocking to the state. The victim's family has shown grace to the defendant, a grace that the defendant and his family never showed. Your Honor, with respect to the state's request for consecutive service, consecutive terms are necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender. And consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public. Additionally, at least two or more of these multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct. And the harm caused by two or more of these offenses was so great or so 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. Your Honor, Avian Gaines and his family worked very, very hard to ensure this outcome. It took quite a bit of coordination. It took quite a bit of effort. It took an entire day. It took mounting up additional support, additional weaponry. We're asking that you impose a sentence that is commensurate with that effort and the harm that was caused as a result of it. Thank you. [00:40:46] Speaker 1: All right, thank you. Before I proceed, I saw that a guy who received several letters on behalf of the victim's family and friends. I appreciate those as well. Before I get into the sentence, I just want to point out that, of course, these events that led to old Sheffy Jr.'s death were easily preventable. Ultimately, the defendant and the co-defendant's actions were shocking and reprehensible. Unfortunately, no adult really stepped in to stop this outrageous behavior that continued throughout the day. He said the defendant and the co-defendant's treated the streets of Painesville like it was some sort of video game, chasing William Sheffy throughout the day, beating on his car, driving recklessly, and ultimately engaging in conduct that pinned him in to prevent his escape and ultimately murdering him in cold blood. He was not the only victim that day, as indicated by the state. When Adam and Jeffrey Lee were in the car when they were shot at by the co-defendants. And two completely innocent people, Mr. Renoso and Mr. Ramirez, were just going about their day when they were struck by gunfire by the defendant's co-defendants. As of Mr. Gaines, his actions helped create that situation with the banning back and forth throughout the day with Mr. Sheffy. He could have simply ignored it. He said he took the opportunity to arm himself that day with a gun, later used by his cousin, Xavier Jackson. Mr. Claims, he didn't want any of this to happen, but frankly, that lacks credibility for the court based on his conduct while at the corner of Rockwood and State Street, where he follows William James Sheffy, prevents a realistic chance of escape, and hands a firearm to the co-defendant, Xavier Jackson. As indicated by the court earlier, the defendant wanted to fight, wanted to fight, wanted to fight. Frankly, the court did not understand that throughout the day, why that would even be possible. And the fact that, frankly, the defendant is much larger than the victim, Mr. Sheffy. And I do agree with what the state said. I do think Avion Gaines does show remorse, but I'm not sure what happened to William. I think it's for the consequences he now faces. So with respect to the court, I have considered the record, the oral statements made. As indicated, I reviewed the victim impact statements, reviewed the pre-sentence report and investigation. I've considered my conference and chambers with counsel, the statements of the defendant, defendant's counsel, and the prosecutor, and the statements made today in court. I've also considered the overall purpose of felony sentencing, pursuant to revise code 29-29-11, which is to protect the public from future crime by this offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the effective rehabilitation of this offender, using the minimum sanctions the court determines to accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local government resources. I've considered the need for incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, along with that public burden on governmental resources. I've considered the recommendation made today by the parties. I've reasonably calculated the sentence to achieve the overriding purposes of felony sentencing, to be commensurate with not demeaning to the seriousness of the offenders' conduct, its impact on the victims, and to be consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders. Using my discretion to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of felony sentencing, I have considered all the relevant factors, including the seriousness factors in B and C of Revised Code 29-29-12, and recidivism factors in D and E Revised Code 29-29-12. The factors being more serious than conduct normally constituting the offense, as outlined, the victims of the offense did suffer serious physical, psychological, or economic harm as a result of the offense. With respect to recidivism factors, the only factors that would weigh in this particular case would be in favor of the defendant being no prior juvenile adjudications or no prior criminal convictions. Of course, the court will find that the prison is consistent with the purposes and principles of felony sentencing. The defendant is non-aventable to bail with community control sanctions. The defendant is non-aventable to bail with community control sanctions. The defendant shall serve first a mandatory prison term of one year on the firearm specifications and count two. And count 12, those are each one-year firearm specifications. This must be served prior to and consecutive to any of the other counts. With respect to count two, the court further determines the defendant shall be imposed for a term of 30 years to life as to count two. The defendant is also to serve indefinite prison terms, the minimum of eight years on counts five, six, seven, and eight, and that would be a minimum of eight, a maximum of 12. The defendant is also to serve indefinite prison terms of the minimum of eight years on counts five, six, seven, and eight, and that would be a minimum of eight, a maximum of 12. Count ten, court sentences the defendant to 11 to 16 and a half years, those are the kidnapping charges, as well as count 12 and 14 are also 11 to 16 and a half years. So counts five, six, and ten are to be concurrent. The most serious of those that court finds is going to be count 12, counts two, seven, eight, 12, and 14 are consecutive. So the total goes as follows, the total is 30 to life on count two, eight years on counts seven, five, six, seven, and eight, and 11 to 16 and a half years on count 12 and 14, plus the two firearm specifications. So the total prison term is 70 to 75 and a half years to life in prison. That prison term will be served at the Lorraine Correctional Institution with 356 days of credit for time already served. With respect to being more than the minimum, prison is needed to protect the public from future crime, and the minimum sentence would demean the seriousness of the offender's conduct. With respect to consecutive service, it is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and the danger the offender pushes to the public, as well as under 29, 29, 29, 14, C, 4, 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 were 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. As well as the offender has committed the worst forms of the offense and the offender poses the greatest likelihood of recidivism, making maximum sentence appropriate. Respect to financial sanctions in accordance with 29, 29, 18, the court's not going to impose a fine, but the court is ordering defendant to pay the cost of prosecution because some of the sentences are not, do not include the life tail. Uh, post release control is mandatory for the court to state post release control as part of the sentence or at least the kidnapping, thonious assault charges, you'll be on a period of post release control for a minimum of two years up to five years as determined by the adult parole authority. Now, if you were placed on post release control, violating the conditions of your post release control, the adult parole authority is allowed to impose more restrictive post release control sanctions or they can return into prison for up to nine months for each violation up to maximum of half of your stated prison term. If your violation of post release control is a new felony, you may be prosecuted for that new felony and the court which you are being prosecuted for the new felony may impose an additional consecutive prison sentence for a post release control violation. The maximum prison term for the post release control violation should have the greater of 12 months or the period of post release control for the earlier felony minus any time you've spent under post release control for that earlier felony. As some of these are also Reagan Tokes case, uh, raising Reagan Tokes charges, I have to give the following attisements. Number one, there's a rebuttable presumption that you shall be released from the service of the sentence of the expiration of their minimum term or presumptive earned early release date, whichever is earlier. Number two, the Department of Corrections is allowed to rebut that presumption. If at a hearing they hold the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections to make specified determinations regarding your conduct while you're confined, your rehabilitation, your threat to society, your restrictive housing, if any, while confined in your security classification. If described at these hearings, the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections makes these specified determinations and rebuts that presumption, they may maintain your incarceration after the expiration of the minimum term or after the presumptive early release date for the length of time Department of Rehabilitation determines to be reasonable. Department may make specified determinations and maintain offender's incarceration more than one time. If the offender has not been released prior to the expiration of the offender's maximum prison term imposed as part of the sentence, the offender must be released upon the expiration of that term. I'm now going to read you your appellate rights, Mr. Gaines. Number one, you have the right to appeal this matter within 30 days after filing the court of the court's sentencing entry. Number two, if you're unable to pay for the cost of transcripts, the record, and all relevant documents required for the appeal, those will be provided at no cost to you. Number three, if you're unable to pay for an appeal, you're entitled to have a notice of appeal filed without payment of a filing fee. Anything else from the court from this? I'll start with the defense. I understand you wish to have the court. You wish to withdraw and have the court appoint the public counsel. Is that correct? That is correct. [00:50:13] Ms. Mary Catherine Corrigan: Your Honor. My client is 19 years old. He was just sentenced to 75, 70 to 75 and a half years to life in prison. The Ohio Public Defender Commission does list incarceration at the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections as a presumptive indigency. I do understand that I was retained. However, there is case law that indicates that having retained counsel does not preclude you from becoming declared indigent. Your Honor, I do think because of the length of the trial and just the sheer volume of the evidence, he would be best served with me not being his lawyer moving forward. And so I would ask that you declare him indigent, assign counsel, remove me as counsel at this juncture, and allow Mr. Gaines to have transcripts prepared at state's expense. Thank you. [00:51:04] Speaker ?: Thank you. [00:51:05] Speaker 1: Anything else from the state? [00:51:06] Speaker 2: Just a point of clarification, Your Honor, and I apologize if the court said this. My understanding is the court did impose an aggregate minimum of 70 to 75.5 years to a maximum of life in prison. You had indicated the potential indefinite terms on all of the F1s and F2s. I missed it if the court designated a most serious qualifying offense. And the way that I understood the court sentence was that you wanted that indefinite term served just with respect to the most serious qualifying offense of the Reagan-Tokes counts. Yeah, I think I said count 12. Count 12. [00:51:41] Speaker 1: Okay. Designated as the most serious of the Reagan-Tokes offenses. Thank you, Your Honor. [00:51:44] Speaker 2: I'm sorry if I missed that. [00:51:45] Speaker 1: Thank you. With respect to Ms. Borgen, I'll get an order out to your motion to withdraw, okay? Thank you, Your Honor. Anything else for the court at this time? Nothing from the state, Your Honor. All right, we're adjourned. All right. All right. [00:52:00] Speaker ?: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry.