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, March 21, 2025

CAPTION: STATE V. WALKER

APPEAL NOS.: C-240357, C-240358

TRIAL NOS.: B-2400555-B, B-2400748-A

KEY WORDS: CRIM.R. 44 — WAIVER OF COUNSEL — VENUE — FELONIOUS ASSAULT — IMPROPERLY DISCHARGING A FIREARM AT OR INTO A HABITATION — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY ­

SUMMARY: The trial court substantially complied with the requisite Crim.R. 44 colloquy during its extensive inquiry to determine whether defendant was intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waiving his right to counsel and appointed standby counsel who was present throughout the trial, and therefore, defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel.

The trial court did not err in entering convictions for two counts of felonious assault and one count of having weapons while under a disability where the State proved venue beyond a reasonable doubt through circumstantial and direct evidence.

Defendant is discharged from his conviction for receiving stolen property where the State concedes the record is devoid of evidence that defendant knew the handgun used in the commission of the offenses was stolen. 

Defendant’s conviction for improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation was supported by sufficient evidence where defendant’s identity as a complicitor in the offenses was established by video evidence from surveillance cameras and witness testimony—one being a codefendant—and where defendant conceded on appeal that he made statements to encourage his codefendant to shoot the victim, who was standing in front of his home when the codefendant opened fire.

JUDGMENTS: AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED IN PART

JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and NESTOR, J. CONCUR.

 

CAPTION: STATE V. SHERMAN

APPEAL NO.: C-240472 

TRIAL NOS.: B-2301861

KEY WORDS: JAIL-TIME CREDIT — MOOTNESS — POSTRELEASE CONTROL

SUMMARY: Defendant’s appeal was not moot where, although his prison sentence was completed by the time his appeal was heard, he remained under postrelease control, which satisfies his burden of demonstrating an adverse legal consequence of his conviction.

The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for jail-time credit where the credit he sought was served pending a different, unrelated criminal conviction.

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

JUDGES: OPINION by MOORE, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and NESTOR, J., CONCUR.