State v. Vidal
2016 Ohio 8115
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On April 13, 2015, two men (later identified as Emilio O. Vidal and Evan Ecklund) entered the side of victim Marwan Alansari’s Kent home; Alansari confronted them and they left. Police located the men minutes later a short distance away.
- Vidal was wearing dark clothes, gloves, a ski mask and bandana; officers found pepper spray, zip ties, goggles on him; Ecklund had a firearm and a wrench-like club.
- A Portage County grand jury indicted Vidal for aggravated burglary with a firearm specification and possessing criminal tools.
- After a bench trial the court found Vidal guilty of the lesser-included offense of burglary (R.C. 2911.12(A)(2)) and possessing criminal tools, and acquitted him of the firearm specification.
- Vidal received concurrent prison terms (three years burglary; one year possessing criminal tools) and the court ordered no contact with the victim; Vidal appealed, challenging sufficiency/weight of evidence and the no-contact order (and related ineffective assistance claim).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Vidal) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether burglary is a lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary | Aggravated burglary contains all elements of burglary plus an additional element (deadly weapon or inflicting harm), so burglary is a lesser-included offense | Burglary is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary (claimed) | Court: Burglary is a lesser-included offense of aggravated burglary; conviction on burglary permissible |
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary | Evidence (victim’s immediate ID, clothing, tools, conduct) if believed supports elements: trespass by stealth and intent to commit a crime | Insufficient proof of force/stealth and intent; victim couldn’t definitively ID Vidal at trial | Court: Viewing evidence in State’s favor, sufficient evidence supported burglary conviction |
| Manifest weight for burglary and possessing criminal tools | Victim testimony plus officers’ observations and recovered items made State’s version more persuasive | Defense emphasized lack of in-court ID, nonflight, and possible innocent uses of items | Court: Verdict not against manifest weight; possession of tools and circumstances supported convictions |
| Legality of no-contact order while imposing prison | State concedes the no-contact order was error when prison was imposed | Vidal argued no-contact order illegal and counsel ineffective for failing to object | Court: No-contact order vacated as contrary to Anderson; prison sentence affirmed; ineffective-assistance claim moot |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (sufficiency standard following Jackson v. Virginia)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (review of sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (distinguishing sufficiency and manifest weight standards)
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (Ohio 2007) (discussion of manifest weight review)
- State v. Evans, 122 Ohio St.3d 381 (Ohio 2009) (test for lesser-included offense determination)
- State v. Snyder, 192 Ohio App.3d 55 (Ohio App. 2011) (force element satisfied by entry through closed but unlocked door)
- State v. Anderson, 143 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2015) (court may not impose a no-contact community-control sanction when imposing a prison term for the same offenses)