State v. Bates, 2012 Ohio 6039

Bates was convicted in Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas of two aggravated robberies, one kidnapping, and one felonious assault, with firearm specifications on some counts.
August 15, 2008: Bates, Miller, and Hand robbed Henriquez, forced him to drive, and assaulted a man (Smith) later found with injuries and possessions from the robbers.
August 20, 2008: Bates, Miller, and Hand robbed Crowe; shots were fired; Bates fled and was later identified from photos.
Henriquez identified Bates in two photo spreads; the second spread used a different photo, but both led to positive identifications.
Bates moved to suppress the photo identifications; the trial court denied the motion. The trial court later sentenced Bates to twelve years; an amended judgment corrected post-release control.
On appeal, Bates challenges suppression ruling, sufficiency of evidence for Smith-related counts, court costs, and a retirement/transitional-control disapproval in the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the identification procedure unduly suggestive to warrant suppression?	State argued the identifications were reliable under totality of circumstances.	Bates argued second photo spread was unnecessarily suggestive and tainted the identification.	No; identification procedure was not unduly suggestive; suppression denied.
Was the evidence sufficient to convict for aggravated robbery and felonious assault as to Smith?	State relied on Henriquez’s testimony and Bates’s admissions, plus Smith’s injuries.	Bates argued Smith’s absence at trial undercut essential elements.	Sufficient evidence supported convictions for aggravated robbery with firearm specification and felonious assault with a deadly weapon.
Did the court err by imposing court costs without addressing waiver at sentencing?	State contends costs may be imposed if properly directed.	Bates preserved issue only if costs were discussed at sentencing.	Remand for Bates to seek a waiver of court costs; error in not addressing costs at sentencing.
Did the judgment improperly disapprove Bates’ transitional control at sentencing?	State admits the issue; request to correct judgment.	Disapproval of transitional control was improper.	Sustained; remand to amend judgment entry to delete disapproval of transitional control.

Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. 1977) (identification reliability under totality of circumstances)
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (U.S. 1972) (balancing reliability of identifications against suggestiveness)
State v. Sherls, 2002-Ohio-939 (2d Dist. 2002) (addressed suggestive photo confrontations in rulings on admissibility)