State v. Baker
2016 Ohio 3094
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Patrick D. Baker was indicted on one count of grand theft (felony 4) and two counts of complicity to burglary (one felony 2 under R.C. 2911.12(A)(2) — person present or likely to be present; one felony 3 under R.C. 2911.12(A)(3) — person not likely to be present) for a September 25, 2013 burglary of Michael Pfeil’s residence.
- Trial proceeded before a jury in April 2015; Pfeil and two alleged accomplices (Heberling and Shanahan) testified for the state; Baker presented no evidence.
- The jury convicted Baker on all counts; the trial court merged allied offenses and sentenced Baker to 60 months on the second-degree complicity-to-burglary count.
- Baker appealed, raising five assignments of error (procedural sentencing defects, ineffective assistance, logical inconsistency between burglary counts, failure to admonish a testifying co-defendant, and failure to instruct on a lesser included offense).
- The Sixth District found the trial court committed plain error by failing to give a proper lesser-included-offense instruction for Count III (A)(3) despite evidence supporting acquittal on the greater Count II (A)(2). The court reversed and remanded for a new trial; remaining assignments were rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by failing to instruct on a lesser included offense (Count III) | State argued jury was told Count III was the lesser offense and no objection was made | Baker argued omission of instruction on using lesser offense if jury could not find all elements of the greater offense was plain error | Reversed: plain error — evidence reasonably supported acquittal on greater offense and conviction on lesser, so instruction was required |
| Whether sentencing procedures were improper (denial of victim impact, mitigation, R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 consideration) | State: trial court complied with sentencing law | Baker: court failed to allow victim statement, defendant mitigation, or consider statutory purposes/factors | Not reached on merits — rendered moot after reversal for trial error |
| Whether counsel was ineffective at trial | Baker alleged multiple trial errors by counsel | State disputed or defended counsel's conduct | Not reached on merits — rendered moot after reversal for trial error |
| Whether failure to admonish/co-defendant instruction and inconsistency between Counts II and III required reversal | Baker argued the court failed to give required co-defendant admonition and inconsistent count instructions | State argued no plain error or that instructions were sufficient | Not reached on merits — rendered moot after reversal for trial error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247 (1990) (defendant entitled to complete jury instructions on issues raised by the evidence)
- State v. Nielsen, 66 Ohio App.3d 609 (6th Dist.) (Crim.R. 30(A) objection requirement for jury instruction errors)
- State v. Bock, 16 Ohio App.3d 146 (plain error requires showing that, except for the error, result would clearly be otherwise)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (notice of plain error is disfavored and applied only to prevent manifest miscarriage of justice)
- State v. Thomas, 40 Ohio St.3d 213 (lesser-included instruction required only where evidence would reasonably support acquittal on the charged offense and conviction on the lesser offense)