State v. Boone
2013 Ohio 2664
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On May 14, 2010, an armed robber wearing a long wig and disguise entered a Key Bank in Akron, demanded money, struggled with an officer, fled on foot and escaped in an SUV; police later recovered the wig and a matching shirt near the getaway vehicle.
- The SUV was traced to a rental in the name of Boone’s girlfriend; DNA testing showed Boone was the major contributor on the wig and a contributor on the shirt.
- A jury convicted Willie Boone of robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(3)), resisting arrest (misdemeanor, R.C. 2921.33(A)), and escape (R.C. 2921.34(A)(1)); total sentence eight years (misdemeanor 90 days served).
- Boone appealed; this Court affirmed, then granted Boone’s App.R. 26(B) application to reopen based on alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise sentencing errors.
- On reopen, the court vacated its prior opinion, affirmed convictions for robbery and escape (sufficiency and manifest weight), found certain sentencing omissions (court costs notifications and attorney-fee inquiry) conceded by the State, and remanded for resentencing limited to those errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Boone) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency and identity for robbery/escape | Evidence (wig, shirt, DNA, rental link, eyewitness pursuit/license plate) suffices to prove identity and support convictions | No one positively ID’d him; alleged witness inconsistencies undermine proof | Convictions for robbery and escape are supported by sufficient evidence and not against manifest weight; overruled. |
| Manifest weight of evidence | Circumstantial and DNA evidence reliably point to Boone | Inconsistent witness descriptions and lack of positive ID create reasonable doubt | Court weighed record and found no miscarriage of justice; Boone’s convictions affirmed on weight review. |
| Admission of bank photographs / Confrontation Clause | Photos were used to illustrate layout and testimony, properly authenticated and non‑testimonial | Photos are akin to forensic/certificates and implicate Confrontation Clause if not authenticated | Photographs were authenticated, non‑testimonial, admission not plain error; assignment overruled. |
| Sentencing omissions: jail‑time credit / court costs / attorney‑fee inquiry | Jail credit was calculated in a separate entry; court conceded failures on R.C. 2947.23(A) and R.C. 2941.51(D) | Trial court failed to include jail credit in sentencing entry; failed to give statutorily required cost notifications and to inquire about ability to pay attorney fees | Omission of jail credit in main entry was error but not noticed as plain error (no prejudice); failure to give court‑cost notifications and to conduct ability‑to‑pay inquiry for attorney fees conceded — convictions affirmed in part; remanded for resentencing limited to those statutory notifications and determinations. |
| Reopened‑appeal standard re: appellate counsel ineffectiveness | N/A (State did not contest Rule 26(B) framework) | Appellate counsel was deficient for not raising sentencing defects; prejudice exists | Court found appellate counsel’s performance deficient for not assigning conceded sentencing errors, vacated prior opinion and issued new judgment addressing those errors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Iowa 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause prohibits admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements absent cross‑examination)
- Melendez‑Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (lab certificates as testimonial evidence implicating Confrontation Clause)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (forensic report admission without witness testimony violates Confrontation Clause)
- Jenks, State v., 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency review and equivalence of circumstantial and direct evidence)
- Thompkins, State v., 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Otten, State v., 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (standard for manifest‑weight review)