State v. Dumas, 2015 Ohio 2683

On April 8, 2011 Dumas, his cousin Warren Wright, and James Thomas planned an armed robbery of Galaxy Seafood; Wright executed the robbery and was shot by on-site security Officer Walker.
Dumas drove participants to the store, procured a ski mask with Wright, and was charged as an accomplice to aggravated robbery, felony murder (as the underlying felony), and a firearm specification.
At trial Dumas repeatedly disrupted proceedings during voir dire; the judge removed him to a separate room to view the trial by video after warnings and offered continued access to counsel.
The state’s case relied on eyewitnesses, statements from co-conspirator Thomas, and testimony from cousin Delshella Lynch that Dumas confessed his participation.
A jury convicted Dumas of felony murder (with firearm spec), aggravated robbery (with firearm spec); sentences were ordered consecutively for an aggregate term of 28 years to life.
On appeal Dumas raised (1) Confrontation/ presence violation for being excluded after apologizing, (2) allied-offense/double jeopardy merger of murder and robbery, and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s cross-examination of an eyewitness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dumas)	Held
1) Exclusion from courtroom / Sixth Amendment right to be present	Removal was justified by Dumas’s repeated, disruptive conduct; Rule 43(B) video attendance preserved rights	Court violated Confrontation Clause by not allowing Dumas back after his apology	Court affirmed removal as within discretion; video access and counsel communication preserved rights; no constitutional violation
2) Whether aggravated robbery and felony murder are allied offenses (merger / double jeopardy)	Offenses do not merge because victims are different (robbery victims and deceased accomplice are distinct)	Offenses are allied of similar import and should merge for sentencing	Court held offenses are allied in the abstract but, under Johnson/Ruff analysis, not of similar import here because harms/victims were separate; no merger
3) Ineffective assistance of counsel for limited cross-examination of eyewitness Starks	Counsel’s performance was reasonable trial strategy; Dumas convicted as accomplice so presence at scene was immaterial; no prejudice	Counsel failed to elicit discrepancy in Starks’s description that might have exculpated Dumas	Court applied Strickland and found counsel reasonable and no reasonable probability of different outcome; claim denied

Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (trial judge may exclude disruptive defendant after warnings)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Johnson, 943 N.E.2d 253 (Ohio 2010) (allied‑offense analysis requires examining the defendant’s conduct)
State v. Ruff, 34 N.E.3d 892 (Ohio 2015) (refinement of Johnson: consider conduct, animus, and import when deciding merger)