State v. Roland, 2017 Ohio 557

Background

On July 15, 2015 Travis D. Roland shot Marquez Simpson; Simpson was hit in the back, suffered major internal injuries, and was hospitalized and rehabilitated.
Police recovered a loaded handgun from the vehicle Roland was later arrested in (gun found behind front passenger seat) and a loaded magazine from the glove box; an unrelated spent bullet was recovered at the scene; no gun was recovered from Simpson.
Roland admitted to police he fired two shots from the gun in the vehicle, that the gun worked, and that he could have avoided the confrontation by not returning.
Roland claimed self-defense, asserting Simpson had a gun and had threatened him and his cousin; the defense also argued a passenger (deceased) corroborated that Simpson had a gun.
A jury convicted Roland of felonious assault with firearm and drive-by specifications, improper handling of a firearm, and having a weapon under a disability; Roland was sentenced to 10 years and appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Roland's Argument	Held
Whether convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight of the evidence	Evidence (victim and eyewitness testimony, Roland admissions, gun recovered) supports convictions; jury credibility determination favored State	Roland argued self-defense: he was threatened by Simpson who had a gun; shot in defense of himself and his cousin; presence of unmatched bullet suggests Simpson fired	Court affirmed: jury did not lose its way; Roland at fault, could have avoided altercation, multiple shots fired undermined self-defense; evidence supports convictions
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not subpoenaing Detective Patete / failing to present alleged recorded statement of deceased passenger	No prejudice: recorded statement not in record and would have been inadmissible hearsay; counsel’s decision not to call detective falls within trial strategy	Counsel failed to subpoena detective and should have sought suppression of car search; recording would have corroborated Roland’s self-defense claim	Court affirmed: no ineffective assistance. Statement not in record and inadmissible; failure to call witness was strategic; no record to show a meritorious suppression motion or prejudice
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence from vehicle search	Warrant/search issues not shown in appellate record; State maintains no proof suppression would have succeeded	Roland argued search warrant timeline suggests a warrantless search and suppression would have been meritorious	Court affirmed: appellate record inadequate to show a meritorious suppression motion or prejudice from counsel’s alleged failure
Admissibility of out-of-record, recorded statement of deceased passenger	State argued unavailable and not in record; hearsay rules apply	Roland contended statement corroborated his self-defense claim and should have been pursued/introduced	Court held statement not part of record; such a recorded statement would be inadmissible hearsay absent an applicable exception, so no prejudice shown

Key Cases Cited

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (describes manifest-weight standard and deference to the jury on credibility)
State v. Robbins, 58 Ohio St.2d 74 (Ohio 1979) (sets elements a defendant must prove to establish self-defense)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1986) (counsel ineffective for failing to raise claims that would have been meritorious; burden to show merit and prejudice)
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (standards for evaluating counsel performance and prejudice)
State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 1990) (presumption that a properly licensed attorney is competent)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (appellant must demonstrate error by reference to the record)
State v. Litz, 8 Ohio App.3d 321 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982) (recorded statement of deceased witness to police generally inadmissible as hearsay)