State v. Smith
2011 Ohio 3051
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Duane Smith was convicted after a bench trial on numerous robbery-related offenses arising from a October 26, 2009 poker-game robbery at Matt Shultz’s Lake Road residence; convictions included aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, theft, and weapons under disability, with repeat violent offender (RVO) specifications noted but later vacated on appeal.
- Witnesses included Shultz (identification of Smith as the gunman), Powell (accomplice who testified pursuant to a plea deal), Reba Smith (co-defendant who testified against Smith), and Det. Lynch (investigation and statements).
- Powell and Reba testified about the robbery and Smith’s involvement; Shultz identified Smith in court and through pretrial photo arrays; Khai and Simon did not testify.
- The State moved to sentence on counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 20; the trial court imposed an aggregate 18-year sentence after merging allied offenses and remanding for proper entry after an earlier remand.
- On appeal, the court vacated the repeat violent offender specifications but affirmed the remaining convictions and the sentence, and remanded for execution of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Det. Lynch’s testimony about witness veracity violated due process | Smith argues Lynch vouched for witnesses’ truthfulness | Lynch’s testimony invaded the jury’s province on credibility | Assignment overruled |
| Whether Smith was denied the right to present a defense due to biases and impeachment limits | Bias evidence and certain impeachment lines were improperly restricted | Defense could explore Powell’s bias and prior related disputes | Assignment overruled |
| Whether Smith received ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to file suppression motions, request continuances, or prepare adequately | Counsel’s strategy and decisions were reasonable under the circumstances | Assignment overruled (with caveat regarding specific records) |
| Whether the 18-year sentence was proportionate and properly imposed | Sentence for Smith was harsher than co-defendants’ | Disparity justified by differing conduct and cooperation | Sentence not contrary to law; proportionality and discretion affirmed |
| Whether the convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery were allied offenses requiring merger; and the RVO specifications | Some counts and RVO findings were improperly merged/affirmed | Offenses not allied; RVO findings sometimes unsupported | RVO specifications vacated; other convictions and sentences affirmed; allied-offense analysis sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (guides review of Kalish sentencing and Kalish two-step framework)
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (guides nonmandatory consecutive-sentencing framework following Foster)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (allied offenses analysis under R.C. 2941.25; Brown v. Ohio referenced for same-conduct inquiry)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 311 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (holds no mandatory judicial factfinding for consecutive sentences absent legislative changes)