State v. Walker
2025 Ohio 975
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Neomanni Walker was convicted of two counts of felonious assault, and one count each of improperly discharging a firearm at a habitation, having weapons while under disability (WUD), receiving stolen property, and theft, following a February 2024 incident in Cincinnati, Ohio.
- The incident involved Walker and two codefendants using a stolen credit card at gas stations, and later, Walker and another codefendant shot at Gerald Brown outside his residence after being confronted near Brown’s ransacked car.
- A neighbor’s surveillance footage and officer testimony connected Walker to the crime scene and documented both the people and events, including Walker's alleged encouragement to shoot at Brown.
- The trial court permitted Walker to represent himself following a thorough colloquy, although he repeatedly invoked “sovereign citizen” rhetoric, refused to sign a written waiver, and consistently declined counsel.
- Walker was convicted by a jury, with his sentences to run consecutively in the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections; on appeal, he challenged several aspects of the verdict and process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of Counsel | Walker knowingly waived counsel after full advisement | Colloquy insufficient; waiver not knowing/intelligent | Colloquy was sufficient; waiver valid |
| Venue | Venue circumstantially proven as Hamilton County, Ohio | Venue not explicitly proven for felonious assault, WUD counts | Evidence shows venue in Hamilton County beyond reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of Evidence—Receiving Stolen | Evidence showed the gun found at Walker’s house was stolen | No proof Walker knew the gun was stolen | State conceded; conviction reversed, Walker discharged |
| Sufficiency—Discharging Firearm | Walker complicit by urging codefendant to shoot at Brown | Walker only encouraged shooting at Brown, not at house | Complicity applies; evidence sufficient for conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wallace, 2024-Ohio-4886 (scope of Crim.R. 44 colloquy for valid waiver of counsel)
- State v. Martin, 2004-Ohio-5471 (standards for substantial compliance in waiver of counsel)
- State v. Headley, 6 Ohio St.3d 475 (venue must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but may be circumstantial)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (definition of "sufficiency" in criminal appeals)