State v. Hale
2019 Ohio 3276
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2009 Isiah (Isiah) Hale was charged in connection with Montrell Stonewall’s shooting; after a 2010 recorded police interview Hale pled guilty to involuntary manslaughter as part of a plea agreement and was sentenced.
- Hale later sought to withdraw his plea after late disclosure of gunshot residue (GSR) results; the trial court granted the motion in 2013 (Brady-related), and this court affirmed, returning the case toward trial.
- The original case was dismissed without prejudice in 2016 before voir dire; Hale was reindicted the same year on murder, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, weapons-under-disability, firearm specifications, and an added perjury count based on alleged false testimony at the plea-withdrawal hearing.
- At the 2018 jury trial the state presented eyewitness testimony (Santiago, Douglas, Burton, others), forensic evidence (GSR on Stonewall’s right hand; vehicle bullet trajectories), and Hale’s prior inconsistent statements; Hale testified claiming self-defense and that earlier inculpatory statements were false and made on counsel’s advice.
- The jury acquitted Hale of murder under R.C. 2903.02(A) but convicted him of murder under subsection (B) (felony-murder via aggravated robbery), guilty of aggravated robbery, having a weapon while under disability, involuntary manslaughter (lesser included), and perjury; trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 21 years to life.
- On appeal Hale raised sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges, double jeopardy, improper testimony by his former counsel (attorney-client privilege), ineffective assistance/conflict of counsel, and alleged defective consecutive-sentence findings; the court affirmed convictions but remanded for a nunc pro tunc to correct journal-entry sentencing findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hale) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy from reindictment after dismissal without prejudice | Dismissal occurred before jeopardy attached; reindictment permitted | Reindictment after plea-withdrawal and dismissal amounted to being tried twice for same charges | Court: No violation — jeopardy had not attached before dismissal; reindictment allowed |
| Admission of former defense counsel's testimony (attorney-client privilege) | Hale waived privilege by testifying about communications; former counsel may rebut those statements | Testimony violated R.C. 2317.02(A) and Prof.Cond.R. 1.6 — privileged/confidential | Court: No error — Hale’s prior testimony waived privilege; counsel’s testimony permissible and responsive to allegations |
| Conflict of interest / ineffective assistance because trial counsel (Cheselka) previously represented codefendant Burton | No actual conflict; trial court canvassed Hale; written waiver executed; counsel actively pursued defense | Successive representation created a conflict that adversely affected representation | Court: No ineffective assistance — Hale knowingly waived potential conflict; no actual adverse effect shown |
| Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence (murder, robbery, weapons, perjury) | State: eyewitnesses, forensic evidence, Hale’s inconsistent statements and admissions support convictions beyond reasonable doubt | Hale: acted in self-defense; GSR on victim indicates victim fired first; inconsistencies favor Hale’s account | Court: Evidence sufficient and weight supports convictions; jury could reasonably disbelieve Hale’s self-defense claim and credit other witnesses; perjury supported by false testimony at plea-withdrawal hearing |
| Consecutive sentence findings compliance with R.C. 2929.14(C) | Sentencing hearing included required findings; journal entry omitted two bases actually recited at hearing | Journal entry failed to incorporate all statutory findings so sentences are defective | Court: Affirmed sentences but remanded for nunc pro tunc to correct journal entry (clerical fix) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gustafson, 76 Ohio St.3d 425 (Ohio 1996) (jeopardy in jury trial attaches when jury is impaneled and sworn)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest-weight review and "thirteenth juror" role of appellate court)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (analysis of conflict-of-interest claims and actual vs. potential conflicts)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (consecutive-sentence findings must be made on the record; omission in journal entry can be corrected nunc pro tunc)