State v. Simmons
2014 Ohio 4191
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Two incidents involving Aaron Simmons, Kayla Hale, and Daryle Dean at Circle K and nearby locations; gun later recovered in Hale’s car during police searches; Simmons in Hale’s car with Hale’s children present; Dean claimed Simmons threatened him with a gun; later alleged drive-by gesture with gun toward Dean; Simmons charged in two cases: CR 13 07 1991 (weapons under disability, carrying concealed weapons, aggravated menacing) and CR 13 08 2208 (intimidation of a crime victim/witness with firearm spec, possession of cocaine, violation of protection order, aggravated menacing, possession of marijuana); suppression motion denied; jury verdicts: guilty on three counts in CR 13 07 1991 and not guilty on most counts in CR 13 08 2208 with one conviction for marijuana; trial court sentenced to 30 months for weapons under disability (merged with carrying concealed weapons) and 6 months for aggravated menacing, all concurrent; Simmons appeals five assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the suppression ruling correct? | Hale’s vehicle search violated privacy; Simmons lacked standing. | Simmons had no reasonable expectation of privacy in Hale’s car; no standing shown. | First assignment (suppression) overruled; no standing shown. |
| Is the evidence sufficient to support weapons under disability, carrying concealed weapons, and aggravated menacing? | Evidence shows firearm ownership/possession and threatening conduct supports elements. | Evidence insufficient to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. | Sufficiency established for all three convictions. |
| Is the conviction for having weapons under disability against the manifest weight of the evidence? | Weight supports conviction due to LEADS/conviction history and witnesses’ testimony. | Credibility conflicts show miscarriage of justice. | Weight argument rejected; conviction not clearly against weight. |
| Was Crim.R. 29 acquittal properly denied? | Evidence sufficient for acquittal not reached; denial proper. | Court should have granted acquittal due to insufficiency. | Crim.R. 29 denial affirmed; evidence sufficient. |
| Was the 30-month sentence within statutory limits and properly reasoned? | Sentence excessive or not justified by R.C. 2929.11 factors. | Court complied with Kalish/Mathis; no abuse of discretion. | Sentence not contrary to law; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard for reviewing suppression is mixed law and fact; credibility of witnesses)
- State v. White, 2011-Ohio-6748 (9th Dist. Lorain) (standing to challenge search; vehicle occupants' rights depend on privacy expectations)
- State v. Carter, 69 Ohio St.3d 57 (1994) (passenger rights and standing when vehicle is stopped)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1979) (establishing reasonable expectation of privacy required)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passenger standing in vehicle stop; seizure limits)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (sufficiency standard on review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency standard emphasis)
- State v. Ward, 2011-Ohio-518 (9th Dist. Lorain) (LEADS; prior drug conviction as predicate for firearm prohibition)
- State v. Howard, 2014-Ohio-3373 (9th Dist. Lorain) (jury may accept or reject witness testimony; LEADS evidence credibility)