State v. Thompkins
2017 Ohio 1061
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Hotel clerk Janet Lawson was robbed at gunpoint by two juveniles; a third adult stood near the front door. Security footage showed three males (an adult and two juveniles) walking from Gateway Plaza toward the hotel before the robbery.
- Police traced the juveniles to an apartment at Gateway Plaza. When officers knocked, defendant Devonte Thompkins answered; the juveniles emerged from the apartment.
- Search warrant execution recovered the clerk’s cell phone between Thompkins’s mattress and box spring, cash from the hotel in a closet bag, and a gun holster and ammunition in the living room.
- Juvenile I.G. testified that he, T.M., and Thompkins met and agreed Thompkins would act as a lookout while I.G. and T.M. robbed the hotel; they later counted money in Thompkins’s apartment. Thompkins denied planning the robbery, claimed he was only outside smoking, and said the juveniles returned and showed him cash.
- After a bench trial Thompkins was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery with merged firearm specifications; the court imposed concurrent six-year terms for the felonies and a consecutive three-year firearm specification. Thompkins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prosecutor’s impeachment of the State’s witness with a prior inconsistent statement | Use was proper because prosecutor was surprised by witness’s testimony and the prior statement caused affirmative damage | Admission was erroneous and more damaging than the trial testimony | No plain error: trial court reasonably could find surprise and no reversible error occurred |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object and for cross-examination choices | Counsel’s failures were not prejudicial; bench trial judge disregards improper evidence | Counsel was deficient in not objecting and eliciting damaging testimony | No ineffective assistance: performance not deficient and no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Weight and sufficiency of evidence for complicity to commit aggravated robbery | State proved aiding/abetting: presence, conduct, shared intent; physical evidence tied Thompkins to proceeds and premises | Thompkins argued the evidence was insufficient to show complicity | Convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and were not against manifest weight of evidence |
| Sentencing and merger of aggravated-robbery counts | Sentences within statutory ranges; offenses involved separate victims so no merger required | Sentences contrary to law; aggravated-robbery counts should have merged as allied offenses | No error: court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors; separate victims meant offenses dissimilar — no merger; sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error standard and cautionary use)
- State v. Holmes, 30 Ohio St.3d 20 (Ohio 1987) (trial-court discretion on surprise for impeachment under Evid.R. 607)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2001) (complicity standard: aiding and abetting and inference of intent)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for weighing evidence and manifest miscarriage review)