State v. Boyd
2013 Ohio 1333
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In Mansfield, Ohio, on Sept. 5, 2011, Sommer Burdette and Misty Taylor were robbed at knife point; Burdette was cut and both victims surrendered purses, phones, and cash.
- The robber forced Burdette and Taylor to expose items in their bras; the backpack carrying belongings was taken by the assailant.
- Burdette alerted a trooper; a description of a tall, skinny Black male with a backpack matched Boyd, who was later apprehended.
- Burdette and Taylor identified Boyd at the scene; officers recovered Misty Taylor’s purse from Boyd’s backpack; DNA linked Burdette to stains on Boyd’s jacket and backpack.
- Boyd testified he knew Taylor and claimed another person orchestrated the robbery; he attempted to return Misty Taylor’s items after learning of the incident.
- The jury found Boyd guilty of two counts of robbery, two counts of theft, and one count of felonious assault; the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 7 years, with certain terms described as concurrent or consecutive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Failure to suppress backpack search; unobjected comments on silence; flawed jury instructions. | No prejudice; decisions were trial strategy; isolated remarks not outcome-determinative. | No ineffective assistance; suppression motion unlikely to succeed; brief comments and instructions not reversible. |
| Sentencing—merger and consecutive terms; restitution | Allied offenses of similar import should merge; improper imposition of consecutive sentences; restitution issues. | Johnson analysis supports separate offenses and need for consecutive terms; restitution warranted by statute. | Robbery and felonious assault not merged; robbery and theft should have merged; consecutive sentences remanded for proper findings; restitution and court costs remanded for re-evaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 1405 (2010-Ohio-6314) (tests for allied offenses: same conduct and same animus determine merger)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (concerning AP prongs and severance issues; affects conformance post-Foster)
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (1986) (actual prejudice prong requires meritorious motion/defense and likelihood of different outcome)