State v. Smith
2014 Ohio 5095
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Smith was convicted by jury of two counts of aggravated robbery; sentences were 11 years each, to be served consecutively.
- This appeal includes Nos. C-130441 and C-130456; one challenge attacked sufficiency of the evidence for B-1208359A.
- Thomas testified a maroon car circled the block, robbers fled, and two cellular phones (including Jerry’s) were later found on Smith.
- Police stopped the car within 20 minutes and arrested Smith; two phones were recovered from him.
- The court found sufficient evidence to support the B-1208359A conviction; appeal as to B-1208199 lacked asserted errors.
- The trial court failed to incorporate consecutive-sentence findings into the sentencing entries; remand for a nunc pro tunc correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient evidence of complicity in aggravated robbery? | Smith argues no competent evidence shows aiding the principal. | Smith contends absence of shared criminal intent and participation. | Yes; evidence supports conviction under complicity theory. |
| Must Bonnell findings be reflected in sentencing entries? | The court properly made findings at sentencing but failed to record them in the entries. | Argues the nunc pro tunc correction is unnecessary or improper. | Remand for nunc pro tunc entry to reflect findings; judgments affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (sufficiency review; rational finder of fact could convict)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2001) (complicity inferred from presence, conduct, intent)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (requirement to incorporate consecutive-sentence findings in sentencing entries)