Unhinged Man Cusses Out Judge After Sentence — Instantly Gets Max Time!

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: is case number 18 cr 000732 state of ohio versus manson m bryant mr bryant is in court represented by counsel attorneys jerome emoff and dan williams representing the state of ohio's assistant prosecuting attorney alexandra cuts the defendant went before a jury trial starting february 5th 2019 on february 8th 2019 the jury returned its verdict the verdict was guilty in count one aggravated burglary felony one with a firearm specification both a three-year and a one-year guilty in count two aggravated burglary felony one with the same two firearm specifications guilty in count three aggravated robbery felony one with the same two firearm specifications guilty in count four felony one with the same two firearm specifications guilty in count five abduction felony three with the same two firearm specifications and guilty in count seven which i renumbered for the jury as count six of carrying concealed weapons a misdemeanor of the first degree the jury determining that they did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was loaded or for which ammunition was ready at hand on that date i found the defending guilty in count six the actual count six of having weapons while under disability a felony of the third degree and i found the defendant guilty in count seven of carrying concealed weapons a felony of the fourth degree the court did refer to the defendant for an updated criminal record uh the court previously sentenced the defendant to prison and um at that time had a full pre-sentence investigation done the um adult probation department did provide an updated criminal record dated february 21st of uh 2019 and the uh the record uh not only the uh pre-sentence record but the uh the drc shows that the defendant was released from prison on my last sentence of him on november 15th of 2017 the court also has received the victim impact statements from the um the victim mark arturo gonzalez hernandez and ms martha mario the defense has uh filed a motion for new trial and it was based upon the defense's desire and this motion was made uh during the trial and as a motion in lemony it was covered before trial started uh the defense wanted to uh cross-examine him on the um the application for a u visa and uh the uh the court ruled that uh the defense could not get into that i ruled that before the trial nothing that happened during the trial changed my mind about that uh while the trial was pending and as i sit here in retrospect the court is of the opinion that my ruling was uh correct and in fact the court did not hear anything that i would consider embellishment and in fact i'm not sure he even qualifies for a u visa under the facts as he testified to but that's for the uh the uh the federal uh immigration uh judge uh to uh to make that determination but um the uh the court's opinion of the uh of the evidence was that mr gonzalez testified consistent with what he told the police and uh that the court didn't see any exaggeration or embellishment in his testimony on that topic actually had he embellished there probably would have been a felonious assault um charge added to this and also i would have found the kidnapping was such that uh that would be a separate animus and and that i would sentence separately on that so the the motion for new trial uh is denied and is there any reason not to proceed the sentencing at this time mr williams no your honor you may address the court first yes sir of course aware is sentencing [00:05:56] Speaker 2: memorandum was submitted by the defense prior to um today's hearing i believe the court's summation of the issue of merger largely near um what defense had submitted as far as merger of the charges i would just briefly address uh the issue of mergers to count six and seven that being the weapons under disability and hearing concealed weapon uh while there are certainly circumstances in case law to to support i believe some case law was actually cited in the state's sensing memorandum where these two offenses have been found not to be subject to the merger doctrine in those situations i think it was more so speaking um to an individual who actually acquires a weapon prior to commencing a criminal offense and then obviously um uses that weapon in the course of a criminal offense i think here our situation is is distinguishable in that manson bryant was convicted essentially under an hater in a better theory um there was certainly nothing to indicate that he took part in the actual acquisition of the firearm by mr bines uh there was nothing to indicate that he actually physically uh possessed that firearm throughout the course um of the crime that was committed here um for that reason we feel it's distinguishable uh with the so-called you know the essentially the possession of the firearm was all part of a continuous course of conduct and mr bryant was found guilty of those offenses based upon being an aider and better to mr bines in the commission of this act um as to the sentence your honor obviously the court has at its disposal here given the number of offenses uh the firearm specifications um you know the court can craft a sentence here that would essentially keep mr bryant uh in prison until he's a rifle to age um but we would only note that you know retribution is not the only goal of the legal system uh rehabilitation does carry equal weight and a sentence that would essentially you know prohibit mr bryant from being reported any meaningful opportunity to redeem himself and and live a law-abiding life um would not be in in line with the purposes and principles of sentencing uh we are asking the support to consider a 10-year aggregate sentence uh we feel that would not demean the serious of the conduct here and not demean you know the essentially the role as a aider or better that mr bryant was found guilty of here we feel that sentence would be commensurate with sentences that have been proposed by this court for similar crimes and against similar offenders the court is aware that the principal actor here mr bines did in fact receive a 12-year sentence and we feel a 10-year sentence is in part for the role that mr bryant was found guilty here in this particular offense and such a sentence would provide him the opportunity to to live a meaningful life and prove himself in the court that he is capable of rehabilitation thank you man [00:09:17] Speaker 1: manson bryant the law allows you to say whatever it is you want me to consider before i sentence you is there anything you want me to know yes sir [00:09:29] Speaker 3: my honor i know you very well aware of my history i made a lifetime of bad decisions and those bad decisions as far as paying to a lot of people in my family for that i am truly sorry most of my bad decisions have been driven by my addition to drugs and to do whatever i can to continue to get high my ability to stay clean has had me to spend most long hours in prison there's no way for a person to live that's no way for a person to live and it's not how i want to finish my life despite circumstances of my upbringing i understand that i can't continue supporting others for my actions and my marriage i have become jaded towards court legal systems by having this trial was an honest and open fire for me i have never gone through trial before i have a newfound respect for the efforts of the attorneys judges jurors and rule in living as the cute as giving the accused person the opportunity to have a case heard that's all anyone can ask i am thankful for the opportunity in the court by court by the day in court and i respect the decisions that the juries have made i don't have the power and i don't have the power to end the cycle of incarceration and all i ask for you to give me and me an opportunity to still make something out of my life sir i don't want to die in prison sir i'm not a bad person sir you have to do a problem i've been in front of you one of the time i respect you i respect you the decision that you make [00:11:30] Speaker 1: do you have any witnesses to present no your honor thank you all right let me hear from the state [00:11:35] Speaker 4: thank you your honor and i just in reply to the mark merger argument the state also filed a sentencing memorandum that does deal with the merger issues and count six having weapons under disability and carrying facility weapons count seven through the case law they have separate animals and they do not merge goes back to the old house court many districts the acquiring versus the concealing of the weapon are separate animals regardless of whether mr bryant acquired it or mr bines acquired it mr bryant was aware of that they had it in the condo well before they left to do this they were aware of it and the need to conceal it makes it different as well so we do feel there are separate animals and there are no reason that those would merge even in this case also there was an argument made that there had need to be first sentencing your honor obviously this court has heard in detail the facts of the case i don't want to go over them extensively but just looking at the factors in this case they are laid out in the sentencing memorandum whoever just so the record is clear and others can hear obviously the victims mr gonzalez and mr gonzalez and mr murillo both suffered serious psychological harm actually mr gonzalez was present as people unknown to him enter his home without permission terrorizing steal from him the supporters made reference to pointed a gun at him pushed it against his forehead pushed him back threw a blanket over his head continued to move the gun around his body feeling it in his rib cage as he was punched in the head even when they left it left a lasting impression to the point that he left that location he no longer was there he didn't feel safer comfortable there he was renting that room for miss murillo she has also had concerns because she came home as mr bryan and mr vines were leaving she was running late had she not been running late she could have walked into that situation and she had a young child with her so she also had psychological harm knowing what could have happened what did happen to her friend in her residence we also have serious economic harm and the restitution requests for one thousand two hundred ninety eight dollars for mr gonzalez he works very hard for what he has and knows where what he considered all of his valuables the laptop that he had just purchased all of the cash he had jewelry that he had been given by a friend or purchased himself those things can't be even though we give them a monetary value for restitution you can't replace the actual items that have sentimental values and just the feeling of being violated in that manner obviously the defendants were part of organized criminal activity we had mr vina who gave information to mr vines mr vines who had mr bryan to come with him so there would be two and there would be sort of a heavy person as well as the person with the gun the individual is present to over one or whomever else could be in the trailer at that time so they all worked together to facilitate the offense and the knowledge that mrs dina had regarding mr gonzalez transferred down so the knowledge of with the victim and the relationship did facilitate the offense when we look at the recidivism factors there's even a larger concern of what we're looking at the defendant has a history that includes numerous juvenile adjudications going back to 1999 i won't go through all of them since they are laid out in the memo but i will point out that in 1999 we already had a domestic violence and a felony theft 2000 more theft and f2 burglary 2002 we have solved 2003 multiple thefts and falsification already showing crimes of deception as well as violence 2004 there are two separate felony drug abuse cases and an assault case he becomes an adult in 2005 and his history of adult criminal convictions begins again just pointing out some some negative highlights as opposed in 2005 we have more thefts assault resisting arrest probation violation 2006 there are more thefts 2007 more thefts 2008 thefts 2009 felony receipts on property 2010 then that was his first prison sentence 2010 was theft with probation violation and also attempted robbery f4 that was a another prison sentence 2012 multiple thefts assault felony attempted to receive his own property on the assault was a probation violation 2014 felony receipts on property felony robbery into prison on loans he gets out of prison back to november 15th of 2017 then we have 2017 theft and in 2018 while he's on rcprc as well attempted vandalism in april of 2018 and theft in july 2018 and then this incident is also the beginning of july he also as a juvenile went to department services which you sort of think of as juvenile prison he has four prior prison terms as an adult on five separate cases he was placed on three years of post release control when he was released in november of 2017 so he's on post release control at the time of those offenses as of today he has 623 more days on poster use control and though today he has he has not responded favorably to sanctions producing clothes he's had probation violations contempt charges for all violations and obviously he has continued to commit crimes not stopping him in that form and the state would argue that he has no genuine remorse he didn't take responsibility and today if i heard correctly he apologized to his family but not to the individuals he heard specifically in the trailer and the trailer's there was also a comment made about um what one of the co-defendants got and similar crimes and similar defendants similar sentences however as i would mention the court is aware that doesn't mean numerical comparison it specifically means looking at all the factors and purposes and principles which this court does in every single case to look at those cases to what should be done in that case the numerical comparison has been found not to be appropriate throughout this district and others so we do feel that prison is obviously consistent there's a presumption for prison on both counts one and three and there are gun specifications on those as well we feel that any sentence that this court does render should be prison and they should be consecutive sentences the serious nature of what occurred in this case is demeaning not to do prison and to do consecutive sentences they also need to protect the public from future crimes as well as to punch the offender and what he did it was quite horrible and horrendous for those involved in addition in a state he was under post-release control and his history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary necessary to protect the public in future crime by the event so based on all that we do feel that prison is appropriate that all prison sentences should be consecutive and that we feel at least 20 years would be appropriate at a minimum we would ask for the forfeiture of the pistol and ammunition we ask for restitution to mr gonzales in the amount of $1,298 and as his court is aware of the prc would be mandatory at five years and that would be the state's recommendation does the state have any witnesses no your honor the victim of tax statements that you [00:20:16] Speaker 1: the court has considered the record the oral statements made the victim impact statements the trial testimony and evidence the pre-sentence report from several years ago the updated criminal history our conference in chambers with counsel and probation and the statements of the defendant and the defendants counsel court has also considered the overriding purposes of felony sentencing pursuant to revise code 2929.11 try to protect the public from future crime by this offender and others similarly minded and to punish the offenders and to promote the effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state or local governmental resources i have considered the need for incapacitation deterrence rehabilitation and restitution i've considered the recommendations of the parties including the sentencing memoranda i have reasonably calculated this sentence to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing and to be commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of this offender's conduct and its impact on society and the victims and to be consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders in using my discretion to determine the most effective way to comply with the purposes and principles of sentencing i have considered all relevant factors including the seriousness and the recidivism factors set forth in divisions b through e of revised code 2929.12 in that regard there are factors making the offenses more serious the victim suffered serious psychological and economic harm i'm talking about mr gonzalez i believe he needed psychological treatment as a result of this the economic harm was substantial the murillo's suffered significant psychological harm for the home invasion that occurred as they arrived at their place of residence the the offense was committed as part of an organized criminal activity there were three people involved in this there are no factors making the offenses less serious in terms of recidivism the the offenses were committed while on post-release control from the previous time that i sent the defendant to prison for a crime of violence the defendant has an extensive previous criminal history and history of juvenile delinquency he's been to prison three times on four cases he's got nine prior crimes of violence before this case he's got 11 instances of probation violations resisting arrest obstructing justice and contempt of court and numerous uh convictions he's been arrested on four other crimes plus this case while on post-release control the defendant was placed on prc on november 15th of 2017 a three-year period and yet committed this offense um less than eight months later there's a pattern of drug or alcohol abuse and the offender refuses to acknowledge a problem or accept treatment there's been a rehabilitation failure after previous convictions and delinquency adjudications and a failure to respond in the past to probation or post-release control the court determines that the offenses were committed under circumstances very likely to recur and the court determines in to make recidivism less likely that the offender shows a certain amount of remorse the court determines though that the defendant poses the greatest likelihood of committing future crimes on the felony for the ccw there is no presumption in favor of community control because of the prc violation and the prior prison terms and because it was possession of a firearm on the two felony ones there is a presumption in favor of prison and there is not a lick of evidence here by which the court could override that presumption in favor of prison the court determines that prison is needed to protect the public from future crime that a minimum sentence would demean the seriousness of this offender's conduct the court believes that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public and punish this offender they would not be disproportionate to his conduct and the danger he poses that the crimes were committed while on post-release control that the harm is so great or unusual that a single term would not adequately reflect the seriousness of his conduct and his criminal history shows that consecutive terms are needed to protect the public from future crime accordingly it is the sentence of this court Manson Bryant that you serve a period of incarceration in state prison court hereby terminates your your post-release control and i am opposing the balance through november 15th of 2020 i believe that comes up to 623 days according to the drc's calculation the court sentences you to prison on count one aggravated burglary felony one for eight years and three years on the firearm specification court sentences you on count three aggravated robbery felony one to a period of incarceration and state prison for eight years plus three years on the firearm specification the court sentences you on count six weapons under disability felony three for 36 months and on count seven ccw felony four for 18 months the court makes the two weapons charges count six and seven concurrent with each other and concurrent to all of the other charges the offenses however the court makes the two f1s consecutive with one another and therefore the order of serving your prison time would be prc time first followed by the gun spec on count one followed by the gun spec on count three followed by count one followed by count two for a total of 22 years with credit for 231 days the court determines that you have or will have the ability to pay restitution [00:29:03] Speaker 5: your courtroom you racist ass bitch fuck your courtroom man you racist as fuck you racist as fuck 22 years right yes bitch you ain't shit nigga jenny sturgle leads to sturgle told me about that bullshit actually actually you know what remember remember when i said that you had for some more wait a minute when i said that you had a certain amount of remarks i was mistaken [00:29:38] Speaker 1: the court determines the court determines that maximum imprisonment is needed so it's 11 years on count one and 11 years on count three [00:29:56] Speaker 5: down bro that's 28 years [00:30:24] Speaker 1: this council wave the council wave presence for the remainder of the of the advice that i have to [00:30:35] Speaker 5: get yes your honor all right you can take them hey thank you jenny thank you sir [00:30:46] Speaker 1: court determines that the defendant has shown no remorse whatsoever i was giving him uh remorse a certain amount of remorse in mitigation of the sentence the defendant has shown me that he has no remorse whatsoever and therefore the court determines that maximum imprisonment is needed he poses the greatest likelihood of recidivism so i believe i stated that restitution that restitution in the amount of 1298 dollars to victim arturo gonzalez judgment rendered for that amount to be monitored by the ohio adult parole authority payable through the clerk courts defendants afford forfeit all items in the specification being the pistol and ammunition to pay the costs of confinement prosecution supervision treatment court costs fund the defendant's release from prison to be on a mandatory non-reducible period of post-release control for five years subject to the jurisdiction in control of the ohio adult parole authority can return him to prison for up to nine months for any one violation and up to one half the original prison term for all violations in the aggregate all of that time is part of the sentence should the violation of prc be a new felony the judge in the new felony case in addition to sending him to prison on the new case can send him back to prison on this case for the greater of one year whatever length of time remains unexpired on that mandatory non-reducible five years all of that time is already part of the sentence the defendant may be eligible to earn some credit against post against time to be served on the non-mandatory uh portions of this the non-mandatory portions would be cons one and three the mandatory portions being the prc and the two gun specs the credit is capped at eight percent of time to be served the uh as long as the defendant owns owes court costs stake and block his motor vehicle registration court opposes shock incarceration or intensive prison program bond if any is released the defendant is ineligible for judicial release and the time period for counting judicial release eligibility does not count during the mandatory times which would be the prc and the two three year gun specs anything else not from the state nothing wrong thank you probation have anything to say good probation for you all right we're adjourned