State v. Brinkley
2017 Ohio 1269
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 16, 2015, a masked gunman robbed a convenience store; cashier later identified Jurmaine K. Brinkley as the robber from prior acquaintance and from a photo array and in-court ID.
- Police did not recover the mask, clothing, or weapon; investigation gaps and a detective’s testimony about imperfect work were raised at trial.
- Brinkley lived about a three-minute walk from the store and had been observed in the store earlier the same night; his grandmother initially identified him from surveillance but recanted at trial.
- Brinkley was tried by a jury, found guilty of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, and sentenced to 10 years plus a mandatory consecutive 3-year firearm term (total 13 years).
- Brinkley appealed, raising (reordered) sufficiency/manifest-weight, Batson challenge to a peremptory strike of an African-American juror, and sentencing error; the Ninth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brinkley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to submit to jury | Cashier’s eyewitness ID, grandmother’s initial ID, and circumstantial facts suffice | Single eyewitness ID was inconsistent; evidence insufficient to prove Brinkley was the robber | Court: Evidence viewed in prosecution’s favor was sufficient; Crim.R.29 denial proper |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | Jury reasonably credited cashier and other evidence | Cashier’s testimony conflicted with prior statements; grandmother recanted; police investigative gaps undermine ID | Court: No manifest miscarriage of justice; credibility was for jury; conviction affirmed |
| Batson challenge to prosecutor’s peremptory strike of an African-American juror | Strike was race-neutral: juror appeared to be sleeping during voir dire and had recently served on a criminal jury that returned not-guilty | Strike was pretext to remove an African-American juror; other jurors had similar backgrounds | Court: Trial judge’s finding not clearly erroneous; prosecutor offered credible race-neutral reasons; no Batson violation |
| Sentencing reasonableness/abuse of discretion | Sentence (within statutory range) reflected consideration of sentencing statutes, seriousness, defendant’s character, and absence of remorse | Sentence was unreasonable; court relied on inadmissible information and failed to make required findings | Court: Sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; trial court properly considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and permissible character information; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency and manifest-weight standards)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (1986) (manifest-weight standard; appellate court acts as thirteenth juror in exceptional cases)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (three-step framework for race-based peremptory challenge claims)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (trial court must assess plausibility of prosecutor’s explanations for strikes)
- Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (facial validity of prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation governs Batson second step)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences; clear-and-convincing threshold)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (trial courts have full discretion to impose sentence within statutory range)