The Akron Legal News

Mentor who physically abuse protege loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 28, 2015

The 2nd District Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling affirming a 10-year prison sentence in the case of Bryon Mansley, a Centerville man who was charged with seven felonies for the abuse and extortion of a single male victim.

Mansley appealed from the judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas where he pleaded guilty to two counts of kidnapping, four counts of felonious assault and one count of extortion.

According to Mansley’s appellate brief, he contended that his sentence must be reversed because the trial court failed to consider that he pleaded guilty, accepted full responsibility and was a first-time offender.

Mansley also asserted that his sentence was disproportionate to other sentences for similar crimes.

“We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and the sentence is neither clearly and convincingly unsupported by the record nor contrary to law,” Judge Mike Fain wrote in the opinion that he authored on behalf of the three-judge appellate panel.

Case summary states that the charges against Mansley stemmed from conduct against a single victim who suffered repeated instances of abuse, intimidation and bullying at the hands of Mansley.

Court documents state that Mansley and the victim were friends and, at the initiation of the victim, Mansley agreed to provide mentoring to help the victim become more successful.

The two men entered into a written contract with the victim agreeing to help Mansley in what was only described as “business enterprises” in court documents.

The Dayton Daily News reported that the victim would do odd jobs for Mansley and, according to the written contract, be rated on a points system, which included physically and financially abusive penalties.

At sentencing, the trial court reviewed the demerit system created by Mansley.

It included the “potential loss of the victim’s shirts and/or pants and underwear, permanently.”

As one penalty, Mansley forced the victim to remove his clothes and streak through the neighborhood, resulting in the victim’s arrest.

Mansley also threatened to make the victim swim the Miami River, knowing that the victim could not swim.

The physical abuse caused injuries that required medical care.

Case summary states that Mansley beat the victim in the groin area, causing days of bleeding, struck him with metal pipes, shoved a pipe down his throat, pinched him with pliers, jabbed a screwdriver in his chest, kicked him and attempted waterboard torture in the shower.

The victim suffered injuries that included broken ribs, a dislocated finger, bruises and lacerations to his head, torso, arms, legs and penis.

Mansley broke two pairs of the victim’s eyeglasses and a cut to the arm required plastic surgery and resulted in a large amount of medical expenses.

Mentally, the victim said, he “was so broken down and emotionally unstable from verbal abuse and manipulation that (he) let him do it.”

Before imposing a sentence, the trial court concluded that Mansley’s conduct was “not designed to help (the victim) improve as a person, but rather a program that was maliciously designed to impose control through degradation, humiliation and fear of physical abuse.”

The trial court also noted that Mansley’s attempt to dominate and intimidate the victim continued even after he was incarcerated.

Mansley sent a series of letters playing on the victim’s religious beliefs and his fear of Mansley.

After accepting Mansley’s guilty plea and considering the circumstances of the case, the trial court imposed a 10-year prison sentence, which the court of appeals found to be completely reasonable upon its consideration of the case.

Mansley argued that the trial court failed to follow the law by refusing to consider and properly weigh mitigating factors that would have led it to conclude that Mansley’s offenses were less serious that conduct normally constituting the offense.

According to Mansley, the victim induced and facilitated the offenses and the record supports the fact that Mansley is unlikely to commit further crimes because he showed “genuine remorse” and was a first-time offender.

“The record demonstrates that the trial court considered these factors and concluded that the seriousness of the offenses outweighs factors in mitigation,” Fain wrote. “The trial court specifically cited R.C. 2929.12(B)(2) for its conclusion that the seriousness of the offense guided the appropriate sentence, finding that the victim of Mansley’s offenses suffered serious physical, psychological and economic harm.”

The court of appeals supported the trial court’s conclusion that the victim only consented to the manipulation because of intimidation and threats of abuse.

Likewise, it upheld the lower court’s decision to afford little weight to Mansley’s expressed remorse specifically because Mansley proceeded to threaten his victim even after he was in jail.

Mansley’s final argument was that his sentence was inconsistent with other sentences for felony offenses in the same area. The appellate panel found little merit to that claim.

“Consistency in sentencing does not result from a case-by-case comparison, but by the trial court’s proper application of the statutory sentencing guidelines,” Fain wrote, citing the 10th District Court of Appeals’ ruling in State v. Murphy (2013-Ohio-5599).

Since the trial court followed the rules imposed by sentencing statutes when it ordered Mansley to serve 10 years in prison, the reviewing court refused to reverse Mansley’s sentence.

“We conclude that Mansley’s sentence is not so excessive as to shock the conscience,” Fain concluded. “The trial court followed the law by considering all relevant factors and the record does not clearly or convincingly lack support for the trial court’s sentencing decision.”

The judgment of the Montgomery County court was affirmed with Presiding Judge Jeffrey Froelich and Judge Michael Hall concurring.

The case is cited State v. Mansley, 2015-Ohio-2785.

[Back]