State v. Sweeting, 2013 Ohio 5097

Sweeting convicted at trial of aggravated robbery for Twigg’s Carryout and Food Mart; acquitted on Marathon robbery charges.
Trial court imposed four-year terms for two aggravated-robbery counts plus three-year firearm specs, consecutive to each other.
Additional weapon-under-disability offenses were sentenced to 18 months each, with aggregate terms set at 17 years, all consecutive.
Court did not make statutorily required findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) for consecutive sentences and failed to provide postrelease-control warnings.
On appeal, the state’s handling of convictions, the sufficiency of evidence, Batson challenges, and the alleged trial-counsel deficiencies were reviewed; consecutive sentences and postrelease-controls warnings were vacated and remanded for resentencing.
The judgment is affirmed in all respects except for the consecutive-sentencing and postrelease-control issues, which are remanded for proper resentencing and notifications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Batson challenges were properly resolved	Sweeting argues racial discrimination in juror strikes	State's explanations for strikes were neutral	Batson challenge overruled; no reversible error
Whether failure to give precautionary instructions was plain error	Error effect on weapon-under-disability trial	No objection; not plainly erroneous	No plain error; assignment overruled
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance	Counsel failed to object to videotape/witness issues	Counsel vigorously defended; not ineffective	No ineffectiveness proven; claim overruled
Whether evidence supports convictions (sufficiency/weight)	Evidence was insufficient/weak	Evidence was adequate and credible	Evidence sufficient; no miscarriage of justice found
Whether consecutive sentences were proper and postrelease-control warnings given	Consecutive sentences required statutory findings; warnings.	Findings and warnings not properly provided	Consecutive-sentence findings and postrelease-notifications required; vacated and remanded for resentencing

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (establishes three-step Batson process for peremptory challenges)
State v. Were, 2008-Ohio-2762, 890 N.E.2d 263 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (standard for reviewing Batson rulings)
State v. Hernandez, 63 Ohio St.3d 577, 589 N.E.2d 1310 (Ohio Supreme Court 1992) (clear-error review of discriminatory intent)
State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, 892 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (crim.R. 30 and waiver of errors; plain error standard)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 759 N.E.2d 1240 (Ohio Supreme Court 2002) (standard for reviewing evidentiary issues on appeal)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (Ohio Supreme Court 1991) (direct and circumstantial evidence have same probative value)
State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214, 2006-Ohio-791, 842 N.E.2d 996 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio Supreme Court 1997) (facets of the weight-of-evidence and credibility determinations)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 2010-Ohio-6238, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (postrelease-control notification requirements)