FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Friday, June 7, 2024
CAPTION: STATE V. SMITH
APPEAL NOS.: C-230022, C-230023
TRIAL NOS.: B-1507289A, B-1601998
KEY WORDS: SENTENCING – JUDICIAL BIAS – CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – EIGHTH AMENDMENT – CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
SUMMARY: The trial court did not exhibit judicial bias in imposing sentence where the record does not reflect that the trial court’s sentence was based on bias or prejudice.
The trial court did not err in sentencing defendant to an aggregate term of 79 years’ imprisonment where the sentence was not based on impermissible considerations, was not contrary to law, and did not violate the Eight Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; BOCK, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. ALLEN
APPEAL NO.: C-230280
TRIAL NOS.: B-9204670, B-9206654
KEY WORDS: CRIM.R.33(B) — UNAVOIDABLE PREVENTION
SUMMARY: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence: Defendant could not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence upon which he now relies to support his new-trial motion where he did not specify what evidence had been recently discovered or suppressed, and, presuming the evidence to which defendant was referring was the arresting officer’s statement, defendant cannot show that it had been suppressed by the state when defense counsel acknowledged on the record that he had received the statement in discovery.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; CROUSE and KINSLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: STATE V. SMITH
APPEAL NOS.: C-230415 , C-230416
TRIAL NOS.: C-22CRB-13492, C-22TRC-18365A, C-22TRC-18365B
KEY WORDS: JURISDICTION – VENUE –EVIDENCE
SUMMARY: The evidence was insufficient to support defendant’s convictions where the state failed to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt when it failed to present evidence as to the city, county, or state where the offenses occurred. [But see DISSENT: There was sufficient evidence that venue was proper in Hamilton County where the evidence showed that the investigating and arresting officers worked for the Green Township Police Department, the offenses occurred on the North Bend off-ramp of westbound Interstate 74 next to the “Welcome to Green Township” sign, a sign at the police station said “Green Township Police Department, Hamilton County, Ohio,” and defendant and the charging documents were transported to the Hamilton County Justice Center.]
JUDGMENT: JUDGMENTS REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED
JUDGES: OPINION by KINSLEY, J.; BOCK P.J., CONCURS and ZAYAS, J., DISSENTS.
CAPTION: STATE V. MCCLOUD
APPEAL NO.: C-230493
TRIAL NO.: B-2204750
KEY WORDS: TESTIMONY – ADMISSIBILITY – HEARSAY – EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – MANIFEST WEIGHT – AGGRAVATED ROBBERY – ATTEMPTED MURDER
SUMMARY: The trial court erred in allowing the hearsay testimony of a witness, but the error was harmless because it did not affect the outcome of the trial.
Defendant’s conviction for aggravated robbery was supported by sufficient evidence and not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that defendant obtained the victim’s cell phone and identification after shooting him multiple times.
Defendant’s conviction for attempted murder was not against the weight of the evidence where the evidence established that defendant shot the victim in the chest, stomach, and wrist and attempted to shoot the victim in the head.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, J.; BOCK, P.J., and WINKLER, J., CONCUR.