State v. Dotson
2017 Ohio 5565
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 2, 2016, Jane Doe posted a PlayStation 4 for sale on the Letgo app; a buyer using the handle “Pockets Wattzup” arranged pickup at her southeast Canton home.
- Ryan Thomas entered the home, was handed a bag with the PS4, presented an envelope of $400 in prop (“funny”) money, grabbed the bag, and fled; a purple Dodge Neon with appellant Antonio Dotson as driver left the scene and struck Doe’s leg as it departed.
- Police identified Dotson from the Letgo/Facebook profile and phone number; the envelope contained fake bills marked “for motion picture use only.”
- Thomas pleaded guilty to related offenses and testified that Dotson (known as “Pockets”) drove him to the house and supplied the funny money; Dotson testified he provided a ride for an associate and denied supplying the money or initiating the theft.
- Dotson testified despite counsel’s advice; his testimony elicited impeachment of prior felony and misdemeanor convictions.
- Dotson was indicted for robbery (R.C. 2911.02(A)(2)) and forgery; jury acquitted on forgery, convicted of robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to six years imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dotson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel provided competent representation; Dotson’s testimony (against advice) opened door to impeachment and counsel’s choices were reasonable strategy | Trial counsel was ineffective for allowing impeachment with prior convictions and failing to object to prosecutor’s closing remarks | Overruled — counsel not deficient; Dotson chose to testify and impeachment was admissible under Evid.R. 609; no prejudice shown |
| 2. Prosecutorial misconduct | Closing argument fairly commented on evidence and reasonable inferences; did not shift burden or penalize silence | Prosecutor improperly argued Dotson failed to cooperate and shifted burden, denying a fair trial | Overruled — remarks were fair comment; no plain error and no prejudice to outcome |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence (identification, phone/profile link, bruising, Thomas’s testimony) suffices to prove robbery beyond a reasonable doubt | Conflicting witness accounts create reasonable doubt; conviction against weight of evidence | Overruled — evidence sufficient; jury credibility determinations supported verdict; not against manifest weight |
| 4. Weight of evidence / witness credibility | Credible testimony of victim, boyfriend, and cooperating witness supports robbery conviction | Inconsistencies (Thomas vs. victim) undermine conviction and warrant reversal | Overruled — conflicts were for jury; inconsistencies do not make the verdict a miscarriage of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1955) (presumption that counsel's conduct falls within wide range of reasonable professional assistance)
- Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1983) (client controls certain fundamental decisions, including whether to testify)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (U.S. 1986) (prosecutorial remarks reviewed in context of entire trial)
- Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest weight standards)
- Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 1990) (test for prosecutorial misconduct)
- DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (appellate deference to factfinder on witness credibility)
- Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (factfinder may believe all, part, or none of any witness testimony)
- Berry, 80 Ohio St.3d 371 (Ohio 1997) (defendant may testify against counsel’s advice)