State v. Blazo, 2020 Ohio 4636

On Oct. 2, 2017 two residences on Ravenna Road (Concord, OH) were targeted: one attempted burglary and one completed burglary about 0.3 miles apart.
Security video captured M.K. inside the Alemagno home (11:07–11:14) and calling out “Talk to me Stevie.”
A tire iron recovered from M.K.’s vehicle had toolmarks and paint consistent with damage at both residences.
Cell‑phone records placed appellant’s phone near the scenes and show calls between appellant and M.K. at 11:02 and 11:08 (the latter during M.K.’s time inside the Alemagno home).
Appellant was indicted on burglary/attempt and complicity counts with a repeat violent offender specification; convicted of complicity to burglary and complicity to attempted burglary; sentenced to 8 years and 60 months, to run consecutively.
Appellant appealed, arguing insufficiency/weight of the evidence and that the court erred by imposing maximum and consecutive sentences; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency/manifest weight of evidence for complicity to burglary and attempted burglary	State: circumstantial proof (video, tire‑iron toolmark/paint match, phone pings, call timing, M.K.’s reference to “Stevie,” and inconsistencies in appellant’s statements) proves appellant aided/getaway driver	Blazo: no direct ID on video, no DNA/fingerprints tying him to scenes/vehicle, phone contacts only show friendship not complicity	Affirmed. Court held circumstantial evidence (call timing, tower data, video reference, tool evidence, and discredited denials) was sufficient and not against manifest weight to infer appellant was getaway driver
Validity of maximum individual sentences	State: court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors and appellant’s extensive felony history and prior prison terms	Blazo: maximum sentences excessive/unjustified	Affirmed. Trial court expressly cited sentencing purposes and recidivism/seriousness factors; record supports maximums
Lawful imposition of consecutive sentences	State: consecutive terms justified under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) given offender’s history and need to protect public	Blazo: consecutive sentences disproportionate/excessive	Affirmed. Court found consecutive terms necessary to protect public, proportionate, and supported by appellant’s prior convictions and conduct

State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (circumstantial and direct evidence have equal probative value)
State v. Nicely, 39 Ohio St.3d 147 (Ohio 1988) (definition and use of circumstantial evidence and inferences)
State v. Nevius, 147 Ohio St. 263 (Ohio 1946) (definition of inference from common experience)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinction between sufficiency and manifest weight review)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (appellate review standard for sentences under R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
State v. Gwynne, 156 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 2019) (application of R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 to individual sentence review)
State v. Troisi, 179 Ohio App.3d 326 (11th Dist. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review after viewing evidence in prosecution's favor)