State v. Vokas
| Docket Number | 23AP-167 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 2024 |
| Citation | 2024 Ohio 171 |
| Parties | State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelly Dale Vokas, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
1
2024-Ohio-171
State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Kelly Dale Vokas, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 23AP-167
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District
January 18, 2024
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No. 20CR-5046
On brief:
G. Gary Tyack, Prosecuting Attorney, Sheryl L. Prichard, and Michael A. Walsh, for appellee.
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Mallorie Thomas, for appellant.
Argued:
Michael A. Walsh.
Mallorie Thomas.
DECISION
LELAND, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Kelly Dale Vokas, appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas following appellant's entry of a guilty plea to one count of murder, one count of involuntary manslaughter, and one count of aggravated burglary.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On October 26, 2020, appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated burglary, in violation of R.C. 2911.11, two counts of aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01, two counts of aggravated murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.01, four counts of murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02, and one count of tampering with evidence, in
violation of R.C. 2921.12. The indictment arose out of the deaths of John Blanc, age 77, and Susan Castore, age 75, on October 18, 2020.
{¶ 3} Appellant initially entered a plea of not guilty. On December 16, 2022, appellant withdrew her plea of not guilty and entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated burglary, one count of murder, and one count of involuntary manslaughter (as a stipulated lesser-included offense of murder).
{¶ 4} During the plea hearing, the prosecutor gave the following recitation of the facts.
On October 18th of 2020, at 3:05 p.m., the Franklin County Sheriffs Office communication center received a 911 hang-up call from the landline of the residence located at * * * Carilla Lane here in Franklin County. The communication center called the residence back, but the phone rang busy
Thereafter, Franklin County sheriffs deputies were dispatched to the home and arrived on scene at 3:26 p.m. Upon arrival deputies noted that all of the doors into the home were locked and there didn't appear to be any forced entry. Upon looking into the windows, deputies saw a female wearing a pink hoodie in a hallway who was crouched down. Deputies further observed this female to be shoving items into her purse. At that time, deputies ordered the female to come to the door, but she ran to the back of the residence and disappeared out of sight for several minutes.
When the female reappeared, she ran to the rear sliding door of the home in an attempt to flee. Deputy [Jason] Hollenbach was stationed at this rear sliding door and tried to stop the female as she exited. The female tried to pull away from the deputy, so she was secured in handcuffs.
In attempting to identify her, deputies looked into the purse she was carrying when she fled the home. Deputies were able to locate her ID and determine that she was the defendant, Kelly Vokas.
Also located in her purse were John Blanc and Susan Castore's Ohio IDs, Susan Castore's checkbook, and a bag of coins.
Deputies then entered the home to check for any other persons or emergencies when they observed what appeared to be drops of blood on the floor.
Thereafter, deputies located a white male later identified as John Blanc on the floor of the first floor bathroom. He was unresponsive and had what appeared to be blood on his face and head. Mr. Blanc was pronounced deceased by Prairie Township medics. And upon autopsy, it was determined that the cause of death for John Blanc was stab wounds of the head and neck, with six total stab wounds.
In continuing to clear the home, deputies observed what appeared to be blood on the floor at the bottom of the basement stairs. Deputies went down and located an unresponsive white female, later identified as Susan Castore, on the basement floor [to] the left of the stairs. She was also unresponsive and had what appeared to be stab wounds, as well as having a rope tied around her head, neck, and body.
Ms. Castore was pronounced deceased by Prairie Township medics as well. And upon autopsy it was determined that the cause of death for Susan Castore was ligature strangulation. She also had a stab wound to the right side of her neck.
During their investigation, deputies collected security doorbell video from two different neighbors of John Blanc and Susan Castore. After reviewing approximately 12 hours of video, defendant is [the] only individual, besides John Blanc, [seen] entering the home that day.
Thereafter, the defendant was transported to Franklin County Sheriffs Office where she was read her rights and did agree to be interviewed. During that interview, the defendant did eventually state that she stabbed both of them.
(Dec. 16, 2022 Tr. at 20-23.)
{¶ 5} Prior to sentencing, the trial court ordered a presentence investigation. On February 24, 2023, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. By judgment entry filed February 27, 2023, the trial court sentenced appellant to an indefinite term of 11 years (minimum) to 16 and one-half years (maximum) as to Counts 1 (aggravated burglary) and 4 (involuntary manslaughter), and an indefinite term of 15 years to life as to Count 8 (murder), with the sentences to be served consecutive to each other.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 6} Appellant appeals and assigns the following sole assignment of error for our review:
The Franklin County Common Pleas Court committed plain error when it imposed consecutive sentences. R.C. 2929.14(C)(4); State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177.
III. Analysis
{¶ 7} Under her single assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to make all required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C) in imposing consecutive sentences. Appellant further argues the court erred in failing to incorporate the requisite findings into its sentencing entry.
{¶ 8} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) sets forth "the appropriate standard of review '[o]n appeals involving the imposition of consecutive sentences.'" State v. Dixon, 10th Dist. No. 15AP-432, 2015-Ohio-5277, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, ¶ 28.
{¶ 9} R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) states as follows:
The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing court.
The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court's standard for review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:
(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.
{¶ 10} Thus, in accordance with the above provisions, in considering an appeal of a trial court's judgment imposing consecutive sentences, this court is required to "review the record, including the underlying findings given by the sentencing court, and may 'increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence * * * or may vacate the sentence and remand the
matter to the sentencing court for resentencing' if we clearly and convincingly find the record does not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law." State v. Bland, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-826, 2020-Ohio-4662, ¶ 16, quoting R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
{¶ 11} Under Ohio's consecutive sentencing statute, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), in order to impose consecutive sentences a trial court must find that: (1) consecutive sentences are "necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender," (2) such sentences "are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,"...
To continue reading
Request your trial