Additional sentence upheld

Appeals court affirms extra time Painesville man got after expletive-filled outburst

A panel of appellate judges upheld the additional six years added to a Painesville man’s sentence after he had an expletive-filled outburst in which he called Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Eugene A. Lucci racist.

Lucci originally sentenced Manson Bryant to 22 years in prison after a jury found him guilty on charges of first-degree felony aggravated burglary, first-degree felony aggravated robbery, first-degree felony kidnapping, third-degree felony abduction, third-degree felony having weapons under disability and fourth-degree felony carrying a concealed weapon.

After Bryant’s outburst, Lucci tacked on an additional six years, giving him the maximum possible sentence.

“Actually, you know what? Remember when I said you had

some remorse? I was mistaken,” Lucci said over Bryant’s continued shouting. “The court determines that a maximum imprisonment is needed…”

Lucci said after Bryant was removed from the courtroom that he was giving Bryant a “certain amount of remorse in mitigation of the sentence,” but Bryant showed him that he has “no remorse whatsoever.”

Bryant’s appellate attorney Edward M. Heindel argued that the outburst constituted contempt of court and it should have been punished as such.

Heindel argued that the outburst was not one lacking remorse, “it was simply a verbal attack on the trial court.”

Eleventh District Appeals Court Judge Cynthia Wescott Rice wrote in her judgment that Lucci’s initial ruling was not final and therefore had the authority to revisit and increase it.

“It bears noting that appellant’s sudden verbal eruption does not necessarily reflect a lack of remorse; after all, appellant could possess deep regret for the crimes he committed and the harm he caused and, at the same time, have a highly negative emotional reaction to the court’s sentence,” Rice wrote. “Still, the court could construe appellant’s outburst as a sign that his previous statements of remorse and contrition were not genuine and were more a reflection of his desire to receive leniency.”

Rice said that Lucci could have instead held Bryant in contempt of court for the outburst, but his decision to increase the sentence was not contrary to law.

Bryant was one of three people involved in the July 6, 2018, robbery. According to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, Bryant and 41-year-old Jeffrey Bynes of Bedford entered the victim’s Painesville Township residence at about 4:50 a.m., July 6.

One of the men pointed a gun at the victim. The victim believed the trigger was pulled because he heard a click from the gun.

The victim also told the Sheriff’s Office the gun was physically placed on his head and around the same time one of the men covered the victim’s head with a blanket that was taken from his bed. The blanket was held over his face and one of the men struck him. The victim said the gun was then placed on his ribcage and his wallet was stolen from his pants.

Two more wallets were stolen, totaling about $800 in cash, along with a gold

Lucci said after Bryant was removed from the courtroom that he was giving Bryant a “certain amount of remorse in mitigation of the sentence,” but Bryant showed him that he has “no remorse whatsoever.”

nugget ring, a cell phone and an Apple laptop.

Heindel also argued in the appellate brief that Bryant’s conviction on the firearm charges is unsupported by the evidence in the case.

“By all accounts, Bryant did not have a gun,” Heindel wrote. “The gun was clearly owned by Jeffrey Bynes and Bynes brandished it. Bryant’s fingerprints and DNA were not linked to the gun. Bynes owned the gun and the ammunition was found in his room. There was no DNA or fingerprint evidence attaching Bryant to the gun.”

Bynes, of Bedford, pleaded guilty to first-degree felony aggravated burglary (with a three-year mandatory prison sentence for a firearm specification) and second-degree felony robbery in October, months before Bryant’s trial began.

The appellate judges ruled that this assignment of error also lacked merit. Rice wrote that the state’s definition of “theft offense” includes complicity in committing any statutory theft offense. Aggravated burglary is a statutorily defined theft offense that “that envelops complicity to commit the same.”

“Both the carrying concealed weapons and having weapons under disability convictions presuppose the possession of a firearm or dangerous ordnance,” she wrote.

Rice further wrote, “(i) n this matter, although the jury could not conclude (Bryant) himself actually possessed the firearm during the commission of the offenses, it could find him guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt as an aider and abetter.”

“As there was sufficient, credible evidence that Mr. Bynes carried, brandished, and even struck the victim with a firearm during the commission of the crimes, there was likewise sufficient, credible evidence to find (Bryant) guilty based upon his complicity,” she wrote.

Appellate judges Matt Lynch and Mary Jane Trapp concurred with Rice’s judgment.

Bryant