State v. Johnson, 2011 Ohio 3941

In January 2010, an unarmed man robbed Dobrica Bugasch, taking her cell phone, and fled; Johnson was identified as the suspect and arrested with Bugasch's phone on him.
Johnson was indicted in February 2010 for robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) and a repeat violent offender specification.
A jury convicted Johnson of robbery; the trial court found the specification and sentenced him to eight years, plus an extra year for a 2004 post-release control violation, for a total of nine years.
Johnson challenged pretrial identification via a show-up as unnecessarily suggestive with a reliability question under Biggers/Manson framework.
The State sought to prove Johnson carried Bugasch’s phone; a club security video corroborated the events and Johnson’s coat and cap matched.
On appeal, the court sustained Johnson’s fourth assignment, vacated the post-release control portion, and remanded; other assignments were overruled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the show-up identification suppressible as unnecessarily suggestive?	Johnson argues the show-up was inherently suggestive and unreliable.	State contends identification was reliable under the totality of the circumstances.	Denied suppression; identification reliable.
Did the court err by not giving a cross-racial identification instruction?	Johnson sought a cross-racial identification instruction under Telfaire.	Trial court adequately instructed on identification without Telfaire instruction.	Plain error not shown; instructions adequate.
Is the conviction against the manifest weight or due to insufficient evidence?	Bugasch’s brief description was limited; the phone link could be from another sale; identification was weak.	Evidence, including video and corroboration, supports conviction beyond reasonable doubt.	Weight challenged but not dispositive; evidence sufficient; not against weight.
Was Johnson properly sentenced for post-release control violation given the court's jurisdiction?	Johnson argues the 2004 post-release control was never properly imposed, voiding the later sentence.	State contends post-release control violation sentence proper under R.C. 2929.141.	Sustained; lacking evidence of proper post-release control imposition; remanded for reconsideration.

State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio Supreme Court 1992) (mixed question of law and fact; deference to trial findings then de novo review)
State v. Fanning, 1 Ohio St.3d 19 (Ohio Supreme Court 1982) (standard for suppression review)
State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio Supreme Court 2003) (clear framework for evaluating suppression and identification issues)
State v. Conley, 9th Dist. No. 08CA009454, 2009-Ohio-910 (Ninth District 2009) (recognizes standard for assessing trial court findings on suppression)
State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424 (Ohio Supreme Court 1992) (due process and reliability of identification under Biggers)
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) (reliability factors for identification under the due process clause)
State v. Parker, 53 Ohio St.3d 82 (Ohio Supreme Court 1990) (identification reliability framework)
State v. Guster, 66 Ohio St.2d 266 (Ohio Supreme Court 1981) (limits on required identification instructions when identity is not sole issue)