State v. Welninski
108 N.E.3d 185
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Late Dec. 17–18, 2015: After an altercation at Icon’s Bar (Oregon, OH), Jack Welninski allegedly pistol‑whipped a patron and fired two shots; he, his wife Erica Lauro, and half‑brother Kenneth Maldonado fled to Wood County.
- During the subsequent traffic stop/chase, Maldonado surrendered; Welninski and Lauro fired three gunshots from a parked SUV at Officer Stecker (all missed); Lauro later was found dead of a self‑inflicted head wound; Welninski surrendered and was arrested.
- Physical evidence: three operable firearms recovered (a .380 near Lauro’s body, a .9 mm near Maldonado, and a sawed‑off shotgun used by Welninski); dash‑cam and hospital evidence corroborated shooting and gunfire at patrol car.
- Welninski convicted after jury trial on multiple counts across two consolidated cases, including attempted murder and felonious assault (with firearm and repeat violent offender specifications); sentenced to an aggregate 97 years (88 mandatory).
- On appeal Welninski raised six assignments of error (e.g., evidentiary rulings, manifest weight, ineffective assistance, allied‑offenses/merger, firearm‑specifications, costs); the Sixth Appellate District affirmed convictions except ordered merger of attempted murder and felonious assault in one case and remanded for limited resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Welninski) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court limited cross‑examination about co‑defendant Maldonado’s plea deal | State: trial court properly limited specific inquiry into length of plea exposure; bias evidence otherwise allowed | Welninski: exclusion prevented impeachment of Maldonado via plea terms | Court: no abuse of discretion; plea agreement presence admissible but specific years were rightly excluded |
| Trial court commented on defendant’s silence after courtroom outburst | State: court’s admonition did not invite adverse inference; jury instructed on right not to testify | Welninski: court’s remark violated Fifth Amendment | Held: no Fifth Amendment violation; instruction clarified right not to testify |
| Manifest weight challenge to bar‑incident convictions (Icon’s) | State: eyewitnesses and confession support convictions | Welninski: identification inconsistencies and co‑defendant culpability undermine verdict | Held: convictions not against manifest weight; jurors reasonably credited witnesses and jailhouse statements |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to request psych exam; not seek curative instruction; not object to agent’s credibility comment) | State: counsel’s choices were reasonable strategy; record lacked basis for NGRI; any curative request might worsen effect; agent’s comment harmless | Welninski: counsel deficient and prejudicial | Held: Strickland standard not satisfied; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Merger under R.C. 2941.25: attempted murder vs. felonious assault (Case 15‑CR‑552) | State: separate convictions justified because felonious assault conviction based on aiding‑and‑abetting (different conduct/animus) | Welninski: offenses arise from the same conduct—rapid, successive gunfire at same victim—so allied and must merge | Held: convictions are allied offenses of similar import; trial court erred; reversed in part and remanded for election and limited resentencing |
| Firearm specifications (Case 16‑CR‑039): consecutive imposition | State: R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) requires two mandatory consecutive 3‑yr specs and allows discretion for others | Welninski: multiple consecutive specs constitute duplicative enhancements for same transaction | Held: trial court complied with statute; discretionary consecutive specifications not abused; assignments re firearm specs denied |
| Trial court imposed costs without ability‑to‑pay inquiry | State: statutory costs of prosecution must be included in judgment | Welninski: needed inquiry before imposing costs | Held: costs of prosecution properly imposed; record lacked basis to impose attorney fees or confinement costs, so those portions vacated if intended |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (examining allied‑offense merger; court must analyze defendant’s conduct, animus, and harm)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard for manifest‑weight review)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- State v. Johnson, 93 Ohio St.3d 240 (complicity requires shared criminal intent)