State v. Binford, 2016 Ohio 7678

On April 17, 2015 a Summit County grand jury indicted Allen Binford for aggravated robbery and felonious assault; he pleaded not guilty and proceeded to jury trial.
Jury acquitted Binford of aggravated robbery but convicted him of the lesser included offenses of robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)) and assault (R.C. 2903.13(A)).
Victim A.H. testified Binford punched and kicked her repeatedly after a dispute about money and left with her cell phone; photos and officers’ observations (blood on Binford, cell phone recovered on him) corroborated the assault and taking.
Binford testified he gave A.H. $50 and accepted her cell phone as collateral when she could not provide change; he denied a violent confrontation.
The robbery verdict form did not specify the degree or identify any aggravating element; the trial court nevertheless sentenced Binford for second-degree felony robbery (3 years) and imposed a consecutive 180‑day sentence for assault.
Binford appealed, claiming (1) his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) R.C. 2945.75 required that, absent a verdict stating the degree or an aggravating element, he could only be convicted of the least degree (third-degree robbery).

Issue	State's Argument	Binford's Argument	Held
Whether convictions (robbery and assault) were against the manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence (victim testimony, photographs, blood on defendant, cell phone found on him) supported convictions; credibility was for the jury	Victim was not credible; evidence did not prove he caused or attempted to cause physical harm or commit a theft offense	Court affirmed: weight-of-evidence challenge fails; jury was entitled to credit the victim and corroborating evidence
Whether R.C. 2945.75 required the verdict to specify degree or aggravating element so defendant could only be convicted of third-degree robbery	The State argued R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) did not apply because robbery subsections are distinct offenses with separate elements; jury convicted under (A)(2) (physical harm) as a separate subsection	Because the verdict form omitted degree or an aggravating-element finding, Pelfrey and R.C. 2945.75 mandate conviction only of the least degree (third-degree)	Court affirmed: R.C. 2945.75(A)(2) inapplicable where statute sets out separate subsections with distinct elements; conviction properly treated as second-degree robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)/(B)

State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist. 1986) (standard for manifest weight review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (appellate court as "thirteenth juror"; manifest-weight reversal only in exceptional cases)
State v. Pelfrey, 112 Ohio St.3d 422 (Ohio 2007) (R.C. 2945.75 requires verdict form to state degree or that aggravating element(s) were found)
State v. McDonald, 137 Ohio St.3d 517 (Ohio 2013) (interpretation of R.C. 2945.75 and consequences of noncompliant verdict forms)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (U.S. 1982) (discussion of appellate-weight-of-evidence review)