State v. Singleton, 2020 Ohio 2920

April 2016: Singleton and his girlfriend R.C. had a domestic dispute; Singleton kicked in the apartment door, a physical altercation occurred, R.C. dropped her mobile phone, and Singleton took the phone and left.
Surveillance footage and witness statements corroborated R.C.’s account; Singleton returned the phone about an hour later after becoming aware that a neighbor had called 9‑1‑1.
Singleton was charged with and convicted (bench trial) of robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.
Singleton’s initial delayed appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief; he then filed an App.R. 26(B) application alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; this court granted reopening and appointed new counsel.
On reopening, Singleton raised: (1) insufficiency/manifest‑weight challenge (limited to sufficiency as to intent to deprive), (2) a Crim.R. 16 discovery violation at sentencing (undisclosed rap‑lyrics), and (3) ineffective assistance of prior appellate counsel for raising an argument under the wrong robbery statute.
The majority affirmed the conviction: it found sufficient evidence of intent to deprive, held the trial court adequately remedied the discovery issue at sentencing, and rejected the ineffective‑appellate‑counsel claim for lack of prejudice. A dissent would have found insufficient evidence of intent to deprive given the phone was a gift and was returned.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Singleton)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support robbery (intent to deprive)	Evidence showed Singleton knowingly withheld/appropriated the phone for a period that deprived R.C. of its use during an emergency; surveillance and testimony support intent to deprive.	Taking the phone temporarily (it was a gift he bought) and returning it an hour later shows no purpose to permanently or substantially deprive.	Affirmed: a rational trier could find intent to deprive under R.C. 2913.01(C)(1)/(3); sufficiency proven.
Alleged Crim.R. 16 discovery violation at sentencing (undisclosed rap lyrics)	Even if discoverable, the court gave Singleton an opportunity to respond and credited the late disclosure by imposing 6 years (below prosecutor’s 8‑year request).	Failure to disclose lyrics denied due process and prejudiced sentencing.	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; relief unnecessary because Singleton had opportunity to respond and received some credit.
Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (App.R.26(B))	N/A (issue raised by Singleton)	Appellate counsel raised an argument under the wrong robbery statute and failed to brief the correct claim, constituting deficient performance.	Denied: under Strickland, even if performance deficient, Singleton failed to show prejudice because the issues counsel omitted (as raised on reopening) would not have succeeded.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 2006) (presumption of attorney competence)
State v. Were, 120 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 2008) (appellate ineffective assistance analyzed under Strickland)
State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (Ohio 2013) (trial court discretion in fashioning discovery sanctions)
Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 130 Ohio App.3d 8 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (interpretation of “deprive” in theft context)