State v. Mondie
2019 Ohio 5337
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Victim Charles Braxton called a number associated with Cedric Mondie, left a red Jeep, and entered a white car at a gas station; within minutes Braxton was found shot and later died.
- Gas-station surveillance captured the white vehicle and a person matching Mondie’s appearance; phone records tied the called number to Mondie.
- The murder remained unsolved for three years until a tipster identified the driver (via a neck tattoo) from the surveillance footage.
- Mondie was indicted on multiple counts (aggravated murder, kidnapping, murder, felonious assault, weapons-under-disability); convicted at trial under an accomplice-liability theory; weapons count tried to the bench.
- Trial court imposed an aggregate 44 years to life (consecutive terms including firearm specifications); Mondie appealed raising manifest-weight/sufficiency, Crim.R. 29 insufficiency (ID and firearm in kidnapping), and challenge to consecutive maximum sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions are against the manifest weight/sufficient evidence | State: surveillance, eyewitnesses, phone records, and tipster sufficiently identify Mondie and support accomplice liability | Mondie: vehicle discrepancies and weak identification make verdict against weight/sufficiency | Affirmed — evidence (direct and circumstantial) supports convictions; not an extraordinary case to disturb verdict |
| Whether Crim.R. 29 acquittal was required for lack of ID and lack of proof a firearm was used in the kidnapping | State: short timeline, 911 call, eyewitness hearing a gunshot, and inferences from events support that a gun was present during the kidnapping | Mondie: no witness saw a gun inside the car and murder gun use does not prove it was used during kidnapping; ID insufficient | Denial of Crim.R.29 sustained — circumstantial evidence sufficient to support identification and that a firearm was involved in the course of conduct |
| Whether trial court erred in imposing a maximum consecutive sentence | State: court made required statutory findings (necessary to punish/protect, not disproportionate, course of conduct, great/unusual harm) | Mondie: record lacks support for "great or unusual" harm and course-of-conduct findings; consecutive sentence improper | Affirmed — sentencing court made the required findings on the record and in the entry; consecutive sentence lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (distinguishes sufficiency of the evidence from manifest-weight review)
- Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (appellate court acting as a "thirteenth juror" on manifest-weight review)
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007) (explains criminal manifest-weight standard)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967) (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (circumstantial evidence has same probative value as direct evidence)
- Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325 (1960) (circumstantial evidence can be more persuasive than direct evidence)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court need not recite statutory language verbatim so long as required findings appear in record)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)