State v. Newman
2021 Ohio 2124
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Arthur Newman owned/operated Newman’s Auto & Performance, a truck repair/sales business; he sold numerous vehicles though he had no dealer or salesperson license.
- BMV records, stamped Bills of Sale, temporary tags, and customer testimony showed titles often were not timely delivered and multiple buyers/customers were left without vehicles, parts, or refunds.
- Victims and vendors (e.g., Hillyer, Gorby, KN Excavation, Bob-Boyd Ford, Lambert) testified; bank records and bounced/postdated checks corroborated dishonored payments.
- Superseding indictment alleged multiple theft, passing bad checks, and title offenses; jury convicted Newman on Counts 3, 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, and 19 (some counts merged).
- Sentence: aggregate 7.5 years imprisonment, restitution of $22,054.17; Newman appealed raising six assignments of error (ineffective counsel; sufficiency/manifest weight; sentencing errors; consecutive terms).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Newman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel’s tactics were reasonable; appellant cannot show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland. | Counsel failed to object to "unlicensed-sales" evidence, failed to preserve/proffer BMV witness statements, and should have moved to recuse judge. | Court rejected ineffective-assistance claim: counsel’s strategy was within wide range of reasonable assistance and appellant’s allegations were speculative and lacked prejudice. |
| Sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence | Documentary and testimonial evidence (BMV records, bills of sale, texts, bank records, victim testimony) proved title offenses, thefts, and bad checks beyond reasonable doubt. | Convictions lack sufficient evidence and are against manifest weight; Newman acted as an agent or was an honest but sloppy businessman without criminal intent. | Court affirmed: evidence was sufficient and verdicts not against the manifest weight; jury credited prosecution evidence over self-serving explanations. |
| Sentencing for unconvicted conduct / prison vs. community control | Sentencing court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, the number/seriousness of victims, and appellant’s pattern of deceit; prison was an appropriate disposition within statutory range. | Trial court relied on conduct for which Newman was acquitted and should have imposed community control so he could work to pay restitution. | Court held sentencing supported by the record, not contrary to law; no clear-and-convincing showing that sentence was improper. |
| Consecutive sentences | Trial court made the statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (multiple courses of conduct; harm so great no single term reflects seriousness) and incorporated them into the record/entry. | Consecutive prison terms are disproportionate and unnecessary. | Court upheld consecutive terms: requisite findings discernible in record and sentencing entry; consecutive sentences not contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (1955) (presumption that counsel's conduct falls within wide range of reasonable professional assistance)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight review and role of appellate court as "thirteenth juror")
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (requirements for imposing and reviewing consecutive sentences)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard of review under R.C. 2953.08 for felony sentences)
- State v. Crotts, 104 Ohio St.3d 432 (2004) (discussion of relevance vs. unfair prejudice in evidence)
- Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186 (1990) (presumption that juries follow court instructions)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition and use of "clear and convincing" evidence)