State v. Person, 2017 Ohio 2738

On May 2, 2012, masked men wearing shirts labeled “police” entered a Holly Hill Drive residence to rob it; the occupant, Brandon Leonard, was shot and later died. Shell casings and witnesses indicated multiple rifle shots were fired.\
Four men (Velazquez, Oquendo, Flores, and appellant Raphael Person) drove to the house in a minivan; three co-defendants later pleaded guilty and testified against Person in exchange for state/federal plea concessions.\
Two co-defendants testified Person brought rifles and police shirts, participated in the entry, and that Person and another co-defendant fired at Leonard; a firearms expert matched recovered casings to two rifles.\
The jury convicted Person of murder, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and impersonating a peace officer; acquitted him of aggravated murder and the trial court acquitted on a weapons-under-disability count for insufficient evidence. Sentence: 41 years to life.\
On appeal Person asserted (1) convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the primary witnesses were cooperating co-defendants and (2) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by giving inconsistent theories (opening vs. closing).\

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: co-defendant testimony was consistent with physical evidence and identified Person; jury heard plea deals and was entitled to assess credibility	Person: primary identification came from accomplices who got plea deals; little physical evidence directly tying him to the scene, so verdict is against manifest weight	Court: Affirmed. Jury reasonably credited co-defendants; accomplice instruction and plea deals were before jury; evidence did not weigh heavily against verdicts
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for arguing inconsistent theories (opening vs. closing)	State: counsel’s opening was general (attack intent, burden of proof); closing focused on identity and credibility; presenting alternative theories is tactical and not per se ineffective	Person: counsel first argued lack of intent, then argued lack of presence/identity—this midtrial shift was deficient and prejudicial	Court: No ineffective assistance. Tactical adjustments and inconsistent alternative defenses are not per se deficient; no reasonable probability of a different result

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standard and scope for manifest-weight review)\
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)\
State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1st Dist. 1983) (articulating ‘weighs heavily against conviction’ language used in weight review)\
State v. Mundt, 115 Ohio St.3d 22 (2007) (recognizing midtrial changes in strategy and that presenting inconsistent defenses is not per se ineffective)\
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (2004) (debatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance)