State v. Shepherd
2012 Ohio 5415
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Shepherd was indicted May 24, 2011 on three counts: two felonious assault counts with firearm specifications and one count of having a weapon while under a disability.
- The weapon-under-a-disability count was tried to the court; the felonious assault counts were tried to a jury.
- Dotson testified to a dispute over $100 from a drug deal; Shepherd shot Dotson outside Spot II Lounge, injuring him severely.
- Stewart and Jernigan corroborated Dotson’s account, including the shooting incident and Dotson’s injuries.
- The jury found Shepherd guilty on the felonious assault counts and firearm specifications; the court found him guilty on the weapon-under-a-disability charge; pastor sentencing totaled 13 years plus five years mandatory postrelease control, later deemed incorrect.
- This court affirms the convictions but vacates and remands certain sentencing provisions to correct HB 86/postrelease-control errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial rights were violated | Shepherd | Shepherd | No violation; within 90-day window; constitutional delay not prejudicial |
| Admission of recorded phone calls | State | Dotson’s testimony insufficient to authenticate | Admissible; sufficient foundation under Evid.R. 901 |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State | Counsel failed to request aggravated assault instruction and self-defense | Counsel not deficient; strategy supported by record |
| Ex parte communication with jury | State | Defendant absent during jury communication | Overruled; no showing of prejudice; record supports presence/absence inference |
| Sentence contrary to law under HB 86 | State | Consecutive sentences improper; postrelease-control excess | Partially; consecutive-sentence findings missing and postrelease-control period overstated; remanded for new sentencing with HB 86 compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Abrams, 39 Ohio St.2d 53 (Ohio 1974) (due process and jury communication principles)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (constitutional speedy-trial framework)
- State v. MacDonald, 48 Ohio St.2d 66 (Ohio 1976) (speedy-trial analysis and statutory time limits)
- State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2008) (voice-authentication and admissibility of recordings)
- State v. Chinn, 85 Ohio St.3d 548 (Ohio 1999) (record must affirmatively show absence of defendant at stage)