State v. Adams
2016 Ohio 7772
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Jason M. Adams (no prior record, Marine veteran) was tried by jury and convicted of complicity to aggravated robbery for the January 14, 2014 robbery of 77‑year‑old Sam Jones; sentence: nine years imprisonment.
- Facts supporting conviction: multiple calls between Adams and co‑defendant Scott Lewis around the robbery date, surveillance video of meetings and Dollar General purchase (toy guns), Lewis’s testimony that Adams planned the robbery and recruited Ed Hampton, and Jones’s testimony and photographs showing facial injuries and stitches.
- Lewis and Hampton pleaded guilty before Adams’s trial; Lewis testified at trial under a plea agreement (State recommended five years for Lewis).
- Adams testified he was a victim, denied planning or knowledge of the robbery, and disputed police interview handling and Lewis’s credibility.
- On appeal Adams raised six assignments of error: manifest weight of the evidence; sentencing inconsistency; plain error for admission that codefendants pled guilty; improper post‑release control advisement; jail‑time credit; and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court affirmed except it vacated the post‑release control portion and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Adams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manifest weight: whether evidence supports aggravated‑robbery conviction (serious physical harm) | State: photographs and witness testimony show serious physical harm (bruising, busted lip, broken/false teeth, stitches) — enough for aggravated robbery | Adams: injuries not shown to meet statutory “serious physical harm” thresholds or attempted infliction | Court: Affirmed — substantial credible evidence supports serious physical harm; weight of evidence not a miscarriage of justice |
| Sentence consistency | State: no requirement that codefendants receive equal sentences; trial court considered sentencing factors and stayed within statutory range | Adams: nine years is excessive/inconsistent because codefendants received lesser terms and he didn’t physically assault victim | Court: Affirmed — defendant forfeited detailed proportionality showing at sentencing and sentence within statutory range and supported by record |
| Admission that codefendants pled guilty (plain error) | State: admissible for impeachment/credibility; prosecution reasonably anticipated defense would attack Lewis; not used as substantive evidence of Adams’s guilt | Adams: repeated references to pleas improperly invited jury to infer Adams’s guilt; limiting instruction insufficient | Court: No plain error — plea references had proper purpose (credibility/impeachment), were not unduly emphasized as substantive proof, and defense exploited the plea evidence as well |
| Post‑release control advisement | State: post‑release control was addressed in the judgment entry | Adams: not told about post‑release control at sentencing hearing; inadequate advisement makes that part of sentence void | Court: Sustained — trial court failed to orally advise Adams at sentencing; post‑release control portion vacated and case remanded for resentencing under R.C. 2929.191 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- State v. Eley, 56 Ohio St.2d 169 (Ohio 1978) (sufficiency/weight principles for conviction)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2004) (requirement to notify defendant of post‑release control)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (failure to properly impose post‑release control renders that portion of sentence void)