2017 Ohio 4299
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In August 2015 Jakwan Lash and three associates planned and attempted to rob an AutoZone; surveillance, texts, and purchases tied the group together.
- During the attempted robbery two masked men subdued employee Randy Hay at gunpoint, handcuffed and bound him, and left him; officers tracked scent and the victim’s stolen phone to a red Chevy Blazer.
- Police stopped vehicles connected to the group, recovered matching scratched-off handcuffs, latex gloves, a handgun, and clothing matching descriptions; receipts for duct tape were found on Lash.
- Lash testified he did not own the handcuffs and offered innocent explanations for the hat and receipts.
- A jury convicted Lash of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, tampering with evidence, and related firearm specifications; the trial court imposed consecutive sentences producing a 14-year aggregate term.
- Lash appealed on four grounds: insufficiency of evidence for kidnapping and tampering, allied-offenses/merger, and the propriety of consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lash's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of kidnapping conviction | Evidence (victim testimony, handcuffs, threats) supported kidnapping under R.C. 2905.01(A)(1)/(A)(2) | Insufficient evidence that Hay was kidnapped for hostage/shield purpose and more generally insufficient | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find elements proved |
| Sufficiency of tampering conviction | Scratched serial numbers on matching handcuffs purchased days before the crime showed intent to impair evidence in a likely investigation | No investigation was likely when serial numbers were obliterated; act occurred while planning, not after an investigation began | Affirmed: given the planned violent robbery, an investigation was likely and intent to impair availability/value of evidence was provable |
| Merger (allied offenses) of kidnapping and aggravated robbery | Offenses were committed with separate animus and/or involved separate victims (Hay and AutoZone); R.C. 2941.25(B) allows separate convictions | Kidnapping was merely incidental restraint to the robbery and should merge | Affirmed: kidnapping was completed prior to the store robbery and involved separate, identifiable harm/animus; no merger required |
| Consecutive sentences | Trial court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and record supported them (protect public, punish, not disproportionate, and that harm was so great/unusual) | Record insufficient and trial court failed to incorporate required findings into the journal entry | Partially sustained: findings were made at the hearing and supported by record, but the journal entry did not correctly incorporate those findings — remanded for nunc pro tunc entry |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (evidentiary sufficiency standard) (sets the standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 485 N.E.2d 717 (appellate sufficiency review) (explains that sufficiency review is legal and does not permit reweighing evidence)
- State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339, 11 N.E.3d 1175 (tampering with evidence) (defines elements of tampering and "likelihood" inquiry)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 34 N.E.3d 892 (allied offenses) (explains dissimilar import test and separate victims/harms analysis)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 16 N.E.3d 659 (consecutive sentences) (requires R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing and incorporation in the entry)