State v. Carter
88 N.E.3d 513
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On Jan. 23, 2015, Alexander Ford and Johnell Amison were robbed at gunpoint during a purported drug transaction in a parking lot; shots were fired and Ford was injured.
- Brandon Carter, a longtime friend of Ford, was arrested after Ford identified him in a photo lineup; Carter had denied involvement and claimed he was at a car dealership.
- A jury convicted Carter of one count of robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)); the jury was deadlocked on seven other counts (including aggravated robbery and felonious assault).
- Carter appealed raising five assignments of error: prosecutorial misconduct in closing, ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficiency/manifest weight of the evidence, denial of a Crim.R. 29 motion, and an improper sentence.
- The court affirmed the robbery conviction, rejected all five assignments of error, but remanded to correct a clerical error in the judgment entry regarding which counts were decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Prosecutor’s comments were proper commentary on evidence and credibility | Prosecutor made improper remarks (shifted burden, denigrated counsel, commented impermissibly on silence) | No prejudicial misconduct; remarks permissible or cured by instruction; plain-error standard not met |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Defense counsel’s concessions and strategy were reasonable trial tactics | Counsel admitted Carter’s presence and other damaging facts, prejudicing defense | Counsel’s performance fell within reasonable strategy; no Strickland prejudice |
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence | Evidence (Ford’s ID, testimony, injuries, bullets, car flight) supports robbery conviction | Conviction unsupported or against weight; conflicting testimony excused | Conviction supported by sufficient evidence and not against manifest weight; jury entitled to credit Ford |
| Denial of Crim.R. 29 motion (acquittal) | Court properly denied because evidence sufficient | Jury’s inconsistent verdicts (guilty on one count, hung on others) show error | No error; inconsistent verdicts across counts are permissible; counts are independent |
| Sentencing errors (R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 and DNA notice) | Sentence lawful; court considered factors; failure to give DNA notice harmless | Court failed to state sentencing considerations and failed to notify re: DNA | Sentence affirmed; court presumed to have considered statutes; DNA-notice omission harmless; remand only to correct clerical error in judgment entry |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance two-prong test)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (jury may believe or disbelieve witness testimony)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight standard)
- State v. Getsy, 84 Ohio St.3d 180 (1998) (prosecutor denigration of defense counsel may be error)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (counsel-performance standard in Ohio)
- State v. Smith, 14 Ohio St.3d 13 (1984) (prosecutorial latitude in closing arguments)