State v. Cannon
2020 Ohio 3765
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Two armed intruders entered D.B.’s apartment at night; an exchange of gunfire left D.B. dead and his twin injured. One intruder left a blood trail leading out of the apartment.
- Police alerted hospitals; within 20 minutes Cannon arrived at Elyria Medical Center with a gunshot wound to his right arm. He denied involvement, left the hospital against medical advice, and evaded arrest for ~4 weeks. A burned rental car that had delivered him to the hospital was later recovered.
- DNA testing of blood from the apartment, stairwell, and parking lot produced a single male profile; after testing with Cannon’s sample, Cannon could not be excluded as the source of that profile.
- A jury convicted Cannon of multiple counts (including aggravated murder, felony murder, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, felonious assault, tampering with evidence, and weapons-under-disability) and related firearm specifications; he was acquitted of murder. Sentencing involved merged allied offenses and merged firearm specifications, but the oral record failed to address one specification (Count 11), prompting procedural posturing over finality.
- The State moved to dismiss the appeal arguing the trial court’s nunc pro tunc entry was invalid because the oral sentence did not dispose of the Count 11 specification. The court denied dismissal, held the journal entry complied with Crim.R. 32(C), and reached the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cannon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order because the trial court used a nunc pro tunc to resolve an unpronounced firearm specification | The nunc pro tunc is invalid because it does not reflect what occurred in open court; without proper disposition on the record there is no final appealable order | The journal entry complies with Crim.R. 32(C); the amended/nunc pro tunc entry rendered a final, appealable order | Denied dismissal: the sentencing entry met Crim.R. 32(C) (fact of conviction, sentence, judge’s signature, clerk’s time stamp); finality exists despite label/recording issues with nunc pro tunc |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Cannon’s identity as a perpetrator or that he aided and abetted the crimes (and to support firearm specifications requiring mens rea) | The State: circumstantial and forensic evidence (blood/DNA trail linking Cannon to the fleeing, hospital treatment soon after, three different firearms fired at scene, flight/concealment, false statements) support identity or complicity and the firearm specifications | Cannon: insufficient evidence—he claimed he was present for a drug deal and that two other men unexpectedly kicked in and shot; he denied possessing a gun or sharing intent | Held: Sufficient evidence to convict. A rational juror could conclude Cannon was one of the intruders or aided/abetted them; DNA, timing of hospital arrival, multiple firearms at scene, attempts to evade capture, and false statements support identity/intent and firearm specifications |
| Whether the convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence | State: the evidence (witnesses, physical and forensic evidence, flight, lies) properly supports the jury’s credibility determinations | Cannon: jury lost its way; his testimony provided a different, exculpatory account (presence but not participation) | Held: Not against the manifest weight. Viewing the whole record, the jury reasonably believed the State’s witnesses over Cannon; this is not an exceptional case warranting reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (Crim.R. 32(C) final-judgment requirements)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (sufficiency vs. manifest-weight standards)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (aiding-and-abetting; intent may be inferred from circumstances)
- State v. Scott, 61 Ohio St.2d 155 (common design and use of dangerous instrumentality inference for intent to kill)
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (manifest-weight review framework)
- State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (flight/concealment as evidence of consciousness of guilt)