State v. Parra, 2011 Ohio 3977

Background

Antonio Parra was convicted after a 12-count indictment arising from an armed robbery on March 9, 2009; convictions included weapon under disability, tampering with evidence, receiving stolen property, MDMA trafficking and possession, and possession of criminal tools; the trial court sentenced to nine years plus postrelease control; two related firearm specifications were acquitted; one charge (aggravated robbery) was nolled and other charges were partially resolved on appeal.
The State’s trial case included: Frisco and Greenberg identifying Parra as the gunman, a pistol used in the robbery, and MDMA pills found on Parra; a K-9 track recovered a firearm; the MDMA quantity fell between bulk amounts by unit dose but below the bulk weight.
Parra testified denying involvement or weapon possession, claiming he was not wearing the described clothing and that money on him came from tax refunds; he admitted prior drug convictions.
The jury acquitted Parra of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, intimidation, and disruption of public services; but convicted him of several offenses, including tampering with evidence and possession of criminal tools, and found him not guilty of some firearm specifications.
On appeal, Parra challenged multiple issues, including indictment amendment, bulk amount definitions, evidence tampering sufficiency, and the receiving-stolen-property conviction; the court disposed of each issue with mixed outcomes.
The court remanded for resentencing after modifying some counts to lesser included offenses and reversing the receiving-stolen-property conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the prosecutor’s closing argument amend the indictment’s tampering charge?	Parra argued the closing improperly changed the scope of the offense.	Parra framed the indictment as limited to altering any record, but the closing referenced the gun and cell phone.	No reversible error; no substance change to the charge.
Was the bulk-amount instruction defined for the jury?	Parra contends the jury was not instructed on what constitutes a bulk amount.	Parra asserts lack of definitions prejudiced the jury.	Bulk amount not defined; counts 10 and 11 modified to lesser included offenses.
Is there sufficient evidence to uphold tampering with evidence?	Parra argues the State presented two theories with no single identified item.	State prevailed by showing concealment of the gun or manipulation of evidence.	Sufficient evidence; but the plain-error review found no reversible error.
Was receiving stolen property properly convictable given hearsay evidence of a stolen car?	Parra asserts the vehicle’s theft was proven only by hearsay.	State relied on vehicle-stolen evidence from an officer’s testimony.	Conviction reversed for receiving stolen property due to lack of owner-witness testimony.
Were consecutive sentences properly imposed and reasoned?	Parra challenged constitutionality and the court’s consideration of sentencing factors.	Ice and Foster do not require judicial fact-finding before consecutive sentences.	Sentence within statutory ranges; no abuse of discretion; no reversal.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Vitale, 96 Ohio App.3d 695 (Ohio App. 1994) (indictment reliance and essential-facts doctrine; grand jury prob cause)
State v. McCombs, 2009-Ohio-4036 (Ohio App. 2009) (best practice to ‘to wit’; evidence sufficiency supports related offenses)
State v. Sims, 460 N.E.2d 672 (Ohio App. 1983) (receiving stolen property flaw when theft element shown by hearsay)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Foster, 2006-Ohio-856 (Ohio Supreme Court) (consecutive-sentencing framework post-Foster)
State v. Kalish, 2008-Ohio-4912 (Ohio Supreme Court) (two-step sentencing review framework)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency review of evidence)
State v. Woodson, 24 Ohio App.3d 143 (Ohio App. 1985) (consistency of verdicts across code sections)