State v. Jones
952 N.E.2d 513
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant-appellant Charles Wesley Jones was convicted of robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) in Butler County Court of Common Pleas for taking $10 from Darren Davis at gunpoint or with immediate threat.
- Davis testified a man restrained him from behind, pressed a pointy object to his back, demanded money, and warned not to look back after taking $10.
- Police tracked from the alley to Jones, who was apprehended and found with a $10 bill in his pocket; Davis positively identified Jones at the scene.
- Jones testified he met Davis in Davis’s vehicle to discuss crack cocaine; Davis gave him $10, and Jones later was arrested trying to buy drugs, denying any robbery or gun.
- The trial court instructed on robbery but erroneously submitted the elements of a lesser offense under 2911.02(A)(3) to the jury, though Jones was indicted for 2911.02(A)(2).
- The jury found Jones guilty of robbery as charged, but the trial court later sentenced him for a second-degree felony and attempted to correct the charge to the lesser included offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury instruction on a lesser offense was proper | Jones argues inclusion of A(3) was improper since charged under A(2). | Jones contends the court erred by instructing on a lesser included offense not aligned with the indictment. | Assignment sustained to extent; remand for resentencing on the proper lesser offense. |
| Whether the jury should have been instructed on theft by threat | Jones contends theft by threat is a valid lesser included offense. | State argues some evidence supports theft by threat, permitting instruction. | Overruled; no reasonable jury could convict on theft by threat while rejecting the charged robbery. |
| Whether there was ineffective assistance of counsel | Jones claims counsel failed during trial and sentencing, violating Strickland and state constitutional rights. | Jones asserts counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial. | Some prejudice found regarding sentencing; otherwise no substantial prejudice; remand for resentencing consistent with the proper offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (1988) (defines lesser included offenses and syllabus guidance)
- State v. Watson, 154 Ohio App.3d 150 (2003) (lesser included offense analysis in appellate review)
- State v. Shane, 63 Ohio St.3d 630 (1992) (test for when to instruct on lesser included offenses)
- State v. Davis, 6 Ohio St.3d 91 (1983) (theft by threat as lesser included offense of robbery)