State v. Adams
2016 Ohio 7772
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Jason M. Adams (no prior felonies; Iraq veteran) was tried by jury and convicted of complicity to aggravated robbery for the January 14, 2014 robbery/assault of 77‑year‑old Sam Jones; sentence: 9 years.
- Appellant testified he was victim/innocent; codefendants Scott Lewis and Ed Hampton pled guilty and testified (Lewis against Adams).
- Evidence included victim testimony, surveillance video, phone records showing frequent calls between Adams and Lewis, Dollar General footage showing purchase of toy guns, and photographs of Jones’ facial injuries (bruising, busted lip, broken/false teeth).
- Adams raised six issues on appeal: (1) manifest weight challenge; (2) inconsistent sentence vis‑à‑vis codefendants; (3) plain error from disclosure of codefendants’ guilty pleas; (4) failure to advise of post‑release control; (5) jail‑time credit (later resolved); (6) ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Fourth District affirmed on all issues except it vacated the post‑release control portion of the sentence and remanded for proper advisement/resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Adams' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manifest weight of the evidence (serious physical harm element of aggravated robbery) | Evidence (victim testimony, photos, age, stitches, bruising) sufficiently shows serious physical harm | Injuries did not meet statutory "serious physical harm" threshold | Court: Conviction not against manifest weight; evidence supported serious physical harm (temporary serious disfigurement/ substantial suffering) |
| Sentence consistency with codefendants | No forfeiture of review; trial court considered applicable factors; differing sentences permissible | Adams’ 9‑yr sentence excessive/inconsistent given Lewis (5 yrs) and Hampton (6 yrs) did the physical harm and Adams had no record | Court: Overruled—no reversible inconsistency; sentence within statutory range and trial court considered factors |
| Disclosure of codefendants’ guilty pleas (plain error) | Pleas were admissible for credibility/impeachment; defense invited/use was tactical; limiting instruction given about accomplice testimony | Disclosure prejudiced Adams and was plain error because pleas can’t be used as substantive evidence of guilt | Court: No plain error—pleas admitted for proper purpose (impeachment), not emphasized as substantive proof, and defense used plea information in cross‑exam/argument |
| Post‑release control advisement | Sentence entry alone is insufficient; court must advise at hearing and in entry | Trial court failed to advise at sentencing hearing | Court: Sustained in part—trial court did not advise at hearing; post‑release control portion vacated and case remanded for resentencing/compliance with R.C. 2929.191 |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest‑weight standard)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (trial‑court obligation to notify offender of post‑release control)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (failure to properly impose post‑release control renders that portion of the sentence void)