The Akron Legal News

Man who brutally beat ex-girlfriend for several hours loses his appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 5, 2015

In the 11th District Court of Appeals recectly, a panel of three judges affirmed a 24-year prison sentence for Matthew Brown, a Lake County man who brutally beat his ex-girlfriend.

Brown pleaded guilty in the Lake County Court of Common Pleas to kidnapping and two counts of felonious assault and then challenged the sentence that he received, arguing that it was unreasonable.

“At issue is whether the trial court considered the guidelines for felony sentencing listed in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12 in imposing appellant’s sentence,” Judge Cynthia Westcott Rice wrote on behalf of the court of appeals. “For the reasons that follow, we affirm.”

As part of its review of the case, the appellate panel considered the evidence presented at Brown’s sentencing hearing.

According to those facts, at 1:30 a.m. on Oct. 19, 2013, Brown was stopped while driving 105 mph in a posted 60 mph zone.

Lake County Sheriff’s Deputy Allan Moon conducted the stop and asked Brown why he was driving so fast.

Brown explained that he was going to the house of his girlfriend, Vikki, in Perry because she was not answering her phone and he was concerned that her ex-husband might be harming her.

In his police report, Moon said Brown did not seem to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

He cited Brown and allowed him to go on his way but also dispatched two other deputies to Vikki’s home to make sure she was safe.

The two deputies responded to Vikki’s home at the same time that Brown arrived. At that time, Vikki indicated that she was fine and gave permission for Brown to stay, though she said that she had not invited him.

The deputies left Vikki’s home at about 2 a.m.

Five and a half hours later, at 7:40 a.m., Vikki placed a 911 call and reported that she had fallen in the shower and sustained an injury to her head and ribs.

EMS was sent to the residence, but the dispatcher also informed Deputy Dan Bachnicki of the situation and told him that something did not seem right about the 911 call because it was reported by the alleged fall victim.

Upon arrival, Bachnicki exited his cruiser and spoke with a paramedic, who told him that there was no way that Vikki had fallen in the shower and that she had taken a very brutal beating.

The paramedic stated that Vikki had sustained the worst injuries he had ever seen on an assault victim.

Inside the home, Bachnicki saw Brown sitting calmly and watching the paramedics preparing Vikki for transport on a cot.

He also saw Vikki sitting upright in a chair. Bachnicki testified that both of Vikki’s eyes were swollen shut.

Her lower legs were extremely bruised and covered in blood.

Based on what he saw, Bachnicki asked Brown to step outside to talk about what happened.

Brown maintained that Vikki had fallen in the shower but, as he was talking, Bachnicki noticed that Brown had scratches on his face, arms and neck and blood on his nose and shoes.

Inside the home, no blood or indication of a fall was found in the bathroom. No water droplets or steam led Bachnicki to believe that Vikki did not take a shower at all that night.

However, Bachnicki saw evidence of a struggle in the dining room, kitchen and bedroom.

Broken glass was found all over the floor in the dining area and kitchen, a table leg on the dining room table was broken off and the table was pushed back.

In the kitchen, Bachnicki saw drops of blood and blood smears on the floor.

Kitchen countertops and drawers had blood spatter, Brown’s bloody footprint was found on the kitchen floor and Vikki’s bloody handprint was found on the door leading to the attached garage, indicating that she tried to escape.

Clumps of Vikki’s hair was found throughout the house and her blood was found in her bedroom on the bed sheet and pillow.

With every indication that Vikki’s injuries were not caused by a fall, Bachnicki arrested Brown.

Due to the extent of Vikki’s injuries, she was transported to MetroHealth Hospital in Cleveland by a Lifeflight helicopter.

At first, she refused to identify the person who assaulted her. She had difficulty speaking and initially was only able to mumble the word “fight.”

Later, she would maintain that “someone” beat her and deny that Brown was the cause of her injuries. Eventually, Vikki told hospital staff that Brown was her assailant.

Vikki ended her relationship with Brown one month before the beating because he had destroyed two of her cellphones in a violent rage.

She told a sheriff’s deputy that, on the night of the assault, Brown beat her continuously for five hours, stopping when she passed out and resuming the beating when she regained consciousness.

Throughout the night, Brown threatened to kill Vikki and her three young children.

Upon arrival at the hospital, Vikki was found to have sustained extensive blood loss that required several transfusions, hearing loss, bleeding of her brain, a concussion, an orbital fracture, a nasal bone fracture, a lacerated liver and spleen, a crushed rib cage and 13 fractured ribs.

Vikki’s left eye was so severely injured that she had to undergo surgery and have her eyelid sewn shut to keep the eyeball in place.

At Brown’s sentencing hearing, Vikki pleaded with the court for justice so that Brown could never harm her again.

She said she and her three children live in a constant state of terror and she testified that Brown boasted about his eventual release from prison, telling her that he would “sleep very well” in his prison cell, knowing that someday he will get out.

The state recommended that Brown serve a 24-year prison sentence and Brown’s counsel asked for community control.

Brown spoke on his own behalf and apologized for his actions, though he stated that he did not remember beating Vikki.

“This was a prolonged kidnapping, it was a prolonged and repeated assault of a severe nature,” the trial court stated before imposing a sentence. “The fact that it stopped when she was unconscious and started up again when she regained consciousness indicates to the court that the defendant wanted his victim to feel the beating.”

The trial court found that Brown’s relationship with Vikki facilitated his offense and that Brown was motivated by a gender-based prejudice.

Brown’s prior 1990 conviction for assault was also brought up. In that case, he also beat a girlfriend at the end of a relationship.

The trial court concluded that there were no mitigating factors and it imposed consecutive sentences for a total of 24 years in prison.

On direct appeal to the 11th District court, Brown conceded that he should have been sentenced to prison but he argued that the length of his prison sentence was not appropriate.

According to Brown, the trial court failed to consider the seriousness and recidivism factors listed in R.C. 2929.12 and he argued that the trial court’s conclusion that his offense was gender-based was unsupported by the facts.

In support of the gender bias, the court of appeals pointed to the record of Brown’s psychological evaluation.

In that report, the court’s psychiatrist concluded that there was a strong connection between Brown’s relationships with women and violence.

“Dr. Rindsberg said that (Brown’s) history suggests ‘major problems with his impulse control’ when his relationships with women end,” Rice wrote.

The report further stated, “This puts females he is with at particular risk when those relationships are over.”

The court of appeals also evaluated the trial court’s findings with regard to statutory sentencing factors.

Dismissing Brown’s claim to the contrary, the appellate panel upheld the trial court’s conclusion that he did not show genuine remorse.

“In support, the court noted that appellant acted rationally (albeit criminally) while he was with the deputies before the assault and again while he was with them after Vikki called 911,” Rice wrote, “but, between these two time frames, he severely beat Vikki for more than five hours allegedly with no memory of it.”

Both courts and the psychiatrist found it highly improbable that Brown experienced a blackout during which he was very active and that lasted precisely the amount of time that passed between Brown’s police interactions.

The logical conclusion, made more believable by the fact that he never asked about Vikki’s condition, was that Brown created an excuse for his behavior.

“We cannot say the court erred in concluding that appellant’s stated remorse was not genuine,” Rice wrote.

The court of appeals concluded by finding that the trial court met its obligation by making the required statutory findings on the record before sentencing, specifically, that Brown had a criminal history, that he has a high probability of recidivism if his relationship with another woman ends and that he did not show genuine remorse.

“It is the order and judgment of this court that the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed,” Rice concluded.

Judges Diane Grendell and Colleen Mary O’Toole, who concurred in judgment only, joined Rice to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Brown, 2015-Ohio-2897.

[Back]