State v. Fuller

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Fuller

2025 Ohio 4861

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 23, 2025

Docket25 CAA 01 0006

StatusPublished

This text of 2025 Ohio 4861 (State v. Fuller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Fuller, 2025 Ohio 4861 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Fuller, 2025-Ohio-4861.]

COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 25 CAA 01 0006

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion and Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 24 CRI 04 0242 JASON FULLER Judgment: Affirmed Defendant – Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: October 23, 2025

BEFORE: Craig R. Baldwin, William B. Hoffman, Robert G. Montgomery, Appellate Judges

APPEARANCES: Melissa A. Schiffel, Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney, A. Case Thompson Legal Intern, Katheryn L. Munger, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Jason Fuller, for Defendant-Appellant OPINION

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Jason Fuller appeals the judgment entered by the

Delaware County Common Pleas Court convicting him following his pleas of guilty to

seven counts of endangering children (R.C. 2919.22(B)), and sentencing him to an

aggregate term of incarceration of 210 months. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} Appellant is the natural father of the seven victims in this case. When the

children reached the age of six months, Appellant began “training” the children to obey

his commands by squeezing them tightly in a body-lock until they stopped making noise.

As the children learned to walk, Appellant trained them to come or go upon his command,

striking them if they did not obey his order. Appellant taught parenting seminars at his

church on these techniques to teach infants to obey parents at an early age.

{¶3} When Appellant’s oldest son, O.D.F., was twelve years old, Appellant

punished him by ordering him to sleep in a detached shed. Appellant’s son was given

only a blanket, was forced to use the bathroom outside, and was given dog food to eat.

He was only allowed to exit the shed to complete his chores and was required to eat an

entire canister of dry dog food before he was allowed back in the house. O.D.F. was

once forced into isolation by Appellant for six weeks, confined to a sunroom except for

using the bathroom. During this time, O.D. F. was only allowed to speak twelve words a

day. Appellant once choked O.D.F. to the point of unconsciousness. O.D.F. was once

forced to run twelve miles, stopping when he passed out from heat exhaustion. Because

Appellant believed the child was not doing what he was told, Appellant then forced O.D.F. to run four additional miles. O.D.F. was once forced to do over 300 pushups as

punishment, and was unable to hold a pen for days afterwards.

{¶4} All the children were struck with a belt by Appellant. The siblings would

discuss the new colors they received from the beatings, describing the bruises as rich

purple, dark blue, light pink, green, and yellow. The eldest daughter described secret

beltings, where she would go to the basement and Appellant would order her to pull down

her underwear before beating her with the belt.

{¶5} Appellant woke the children up in the middle of the night by pulling them out

of bed by their hair. He punished one child for not speaking clearly by forcing the child to

put rocks in their mouth and hold their mouth open for an hour. One of Appellant’s

daughters was forced to sit naked while her mother cut her hair and Appellant watched.

{¶6} The older siblings witnessed Appellant “body-lock” the three youngest

siblings and witnessed Appellant striking the younger children with paint sticks. In

addition to isolation as punishment, two of the younger children were forced to wash the

dishes while tied anchored in the kitchen.

{¶7} Appellant coached the children how to lie to law enforcement and children’s

services employees about the treatment in the home. He warned them things would be

worse for them if they were taken away and placed in foster care.

{¶8} Two of the children received a medical diagnosis of torture. Several of the

children were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. One of the children

attempted suicide, and several reported having suicidal ideations.

{¶9} Appellant was indicted by the Delaware County Grand Jury with eight

counts of endangering children and one count of intimidation of an attorney, victim, or witness. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to seven counts

of endangering children, one count as to each child victim, and the remaining two charges

were dismissed. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to thirty

months incarceration on each count, for an aggregate term of incarceration of 210

months. It is from the December 17, 2024, judgment of the trial court Appellant

prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:

I. EACH SENTENCE IS INCOMMENSURATE WITH OR

DEMEANING TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF APPELLANT’S CONDUCT OR

ITS IMPACT ON THE VICTIM, OR EACH SENTENCE IS GROSSLY

INCONSISTENT WITH SENTENCES IMPOSED FOR SIMILAR CRIMES

BY SIMILAR OFFENDERS. THUS, EACH SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO

LAW OR VIOLATES DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, THE

DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROHIBITION, OR THE JURY PROTECTIONS

UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 1, 10 OR 16 OF THE OHIO

CONSTITUTION OR THE FIFTH, SIXTH OR FOURTEENTH

AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

II. IN VIOLATION OF OHIO OR COMMON LAW, THE LOWER

COURT FAILED TO MEANINGFULLY CONSIDER THAT APPELLANT’S

WAR-BORN MENTAL CONDITION CONTRIBUTED TO EACH OFFENSE.

III. APPELLANT’S CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ARE

DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF HIS CONDUCT,

MAKING HIS AGGREGATE SENTENCE CONTRARY TO LAW OR IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, THE CRUEL-

AND-UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT OR DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROHIBITION,

OR THE JURY PROTECTIONS UNDER ARTICLE I, SECTION 1, 9, 10,

OR 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION OR THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH,

OR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

IV. APPELLANT’S CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES ARE

DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE DANGER HE POSES TO THE PUBLIC,

MAKING HIS AGGREGATE SENTENCE CONTRARY TO LAW OR IN

VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, THE CRUEL-

V. AS WRITTEN OR AS APPLIED, R.C. 2929.11(B) IS VOID FOR

VAGUENESS IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER ARTICLE I,

SECTION 1, 10 OR 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION OR THE FIFTH OR

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

VI. AS WRITTEN OR AS APPLIED, R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) IS VOID

FOR VAGUENESS IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER ARTICLE

I, SECTION 1, 10 OR 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION OR THE FIFTH

OR FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. I., II.

{¶10} Appellant’s first two assignments of error relate to the trial court’s weighing

of the statutory factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 and R.C. 2929.12, and will be addressed

together. In his first assignment of error, Appellant argues his sentences are contrary to

law because the trial court imposed a sentence of thirty months incarceration on each

count, failing to recognize his conduct in Count 2, which related to O.D.F., was more

serious than his conduct in the remaining counts. He argues his sentence is not

commensurate with sentences imposed in other similar cases. He also argues the trial

court did not give appropriate weight to his military service.

{¶11} We review felony sentences using the standard of review set forth in R.C.

2953.08. State v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI