State v. BlackshearState v. Blackshear
Juliа R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Alyssa Breyman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Neil McElroy, for appellant.
*****
DUHART, J.
{1} Appellant, Jeno Blackshear II, appeals from a judgment entered by the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas on July 16, 2021, denying him bail. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
{2} On May 13, 2021, J.B.s parents contacted the police to report that they had received text messages and phone calls from their son‘s cell phone indicating that he was being held hostage. Thereafter, officers conducted surveillance at a home where J.B. had been the previous night. During the surveillance, officers observed appellant exit the home and then unsuccessfully attempt to enter J.B.‘s car, before returning inside. Appellant exited the home a second time and, this time, entered his own vehicle. The officers followed and then stopped appellant. Two firearms and J.B.‘s cell phone were discovered inside the vehicle. The officers then entered the home they had been surveilling. There, they found J.B. inside of a locked cabinet that was hanging beneath thе basement stairwell.
{3} J.B. explained to the police that he had previously agreed to grow marijuana for a person named “Ray,” whom he later identified as appellant. J.B. stated that the day before the incident, he had taken his girlfriend to the house in question, and that, upon returning to the house a day later, he discovered that the home had been broken into and that everything associated with the marijuana grow operation had been stolen. He stated that he notified appellant of the burglary. Appellant, upon learning that J.B. had brought his girlfriend to the house, physically assaulted J.B., and then forced him into the basement, where he continued to beat him with various objects. Appellant then forced J.B. into the cаbinet under the stairwell, where he remained until the police arrived.
{5} On June 15, 2021, appellant was indicted in Lucas County Common Pleas Court case No. CR-2021-1858, on four counts: (1) aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, a felony of the first degree; (2) kidnapping with a firearm specificаtion, a felony of the first degree; (3) felonious assault, a felony of the second degree; and (4) defacing the identification marks of a firearm, a misdemeanor of the first degree. Two days later, a warrant was issued for his arrest.
{6} Appellant was arraigned on July 13, 2021, after he voluntarily appeared before the common pleas court. The court, aftеr hearing the parties’ disagreement on whether the court should impose the same bond that the municipal court had previously set, asked if the state would be seeking a hearing on the denial of bail pursuant to
{8} At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that the state had satisfied its burden of proving each of three requirements necessary for the denial of bail under
{9} In his appeal, appellant sets forth the following assignment of error:
Assignment of Error No. I.
The trial court erred in ordering Mr. Blackshear to be held without bond given that:
(a) there was insufficient evidence tо find by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Blackshear posed a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any person or the community, and
(b) there was insufficient evidence to find by clear and convincing evidence that the no release conditions would reasonably assure the safety of that person or the community.
Analysis
{10} In his sole assignment of error, appellant claims that the trial court erred when it ordered him to be held without bail pursuant to
- The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is an offense of violence or involves alcohol or a drug of abuse;
- The weight of the evidence against the accused;
- The history and characteristics of the accused, including, but not limited to, both of the following:
- The character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, and criminal history of the accused;
- Whether, at the time of the current alleged offense or at the time of the arrest of the accused, the accused was on probation, parole, post-release control, or other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for the commission of an offense under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States or under a municipal ordinance.
The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person‘s release.
{12} In order for bail to be denied under the statute, the state must prove each of the three requirements by clear and convincing evidence.
{13} To date, Ohio courts have not reached a consensus on the appropriate standard of review for an appellate court to apply when reviewing a trial court‘s decision under
[I]n reviewing factual determinations of the trial court, an appellate court reviewing a motion to deny bail is bound to accept the trial court‘s findings of fact where they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Accepting these facts as true, the appellate court independently reviews the trial court‘s legal determinations de novo.
State v. Urso, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2010-Ohio-2151, ¶ 47.
{14} Recent decisions by the Second and Eighth Districts have applied all three standards of review, finding consistent results in each case. See Mitchell at ¶ 24 (concluding that conflicts in standards of review did not need to be resolved, as the trial court‘s decision was corrеct under any of the three standards); State v. Hawkins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109097, 2019-Ohio-5132, ¶ 47 (finding that appellant‘s assignment of error should be overruled “regardless of the standard of review we apply“); State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110621, ¶ 40 (finding that, “regardless of what standard of review this court applies,” the trial court erred in revoking appellant‘s bond).
{15} Appellant in the instant case does not dispute that the evidence presented at the deniаl of bail hearing was sufficient to support the trial court‘s finding that he committed the charged offenses of aggravated robbery and kidnapping. Instead, he
{16} Here, the trial court expressly stated at the end of the evidentiary hearing that it had considered the factors set forth at
{17} In challenging the trial court‘s finding, appellant acknowledges that the nature and circumstances of the charged offenses may have established that he posed a threat to the victim before he was arrеsted and charged in this case. However, he emphasizes that the state did not introduce any evidence to establish that he had attempted to contact the victim or had otherwise violated a condition of his release during the two-month period of time that elapsed after he posted bond in the municipal court. He also notes that he voluntаrily appeared in the common pleas court after learning of the indictment and of the warrant for his arrest. Appellant argues that his conduct after being arrested and charged in this case demonstrated that, at the time of the hearing, he no longer posed a threat to the victim or to anyone else. In response, the state asserts that appellant‘s compliance with the municipal court‘s no contact order and his voluntary
{18} At the evidentiary hearing, Czech testified that appellant, upon learning that J.B. had brought his girlfriend to the housе shortly before it was broken into:
[S]truck him with a close-handed fist, choked him from behind, took his cellphone, called his father demanding money, fired the firearm inside * * * the residence with [J.B.‘s father] on the phone, forced him to crawl in to the basement, and while he was down there he was beaten with various objects, mason jars, pieces of wood, paint cans. Said he wаs forced in to a small room which was located in the basement. He said that the room was not able to be secured very well so then forced to get in to the cabinet underneath the stairwell where he was held for the remainder of the incident.
To ensure that J.B. could not escape, appellant had placed a large trash can filled with variоus objects in front of the cabinet. Czech further testified that appellant sent photos of J.B., beaten and bloody, to J.B.‘s family and demanded $10,000 in exchange for his safe return.
{19} Appellant clearly blamed J.B. for the loss of their marijuana grow operation, and he decided to retaliate by physically assaulting J.B. and by holding J.B. against his will. He then demanded a large amount of money from J.B.‘s family, likely as compensation for the loss of his drug business. Finally, he threatened additional harm to
{20} In light of the evidence demonstrating the severity of the actions that appellant had already taken to exact his revenge, we find that it сould reasonably be inferred that there exists a substantial risk that appellant would further retaliate against J.B. for his cooperation with the police investigation and court proceedings. Thus, the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to support the trial court‘s finding that appellant poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm.
{21} The triаl court also found clear and convincing evidence that “no release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of this victim, of his family, and of our community at large[;] the dangerousness and the violence associated with these offenses is too severe.”
{22} In challenging this finding, appellant notes that the municipal court had already set a cash bоnd and had imposed a no contact order. He then, again, emphasizes that the state did not introduce any evidence to establish that he had failed to comply with any release conditions in the two-month period of time that elapsed after he posted bond in the municipal court. Under these circumstances, appellant argues, impositiоn of a cash bond and placement under electronic monitoring would have reasonably assured the safety of the victim, his family, and the community.
{23} Appellant‘s argument that he complied with the municipal court‘s conditions of release neglects the salient point that when the facts were presented to the
{24} It could reasonably be inferred from the evidence presented at the hearing that the serious and violent actions that appellant took against J.B. were motivated by a desire for revenge, and that there are no conditions of release that would reasonably assure that appellant would not further harm J.B. in retaliation for his cooperation with the police investigation and court proceedings. Thus, the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to support the trial court‘s finding.
{25} Based on all of the foregoing, it is our conclusion that there was sufficient evidence presented by which the trial court could have formed a firm belief or conviction in support of its findings under
{26} Accordingly, we find appellant‘s sole assignment of error not well-taken, and the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
Myron C. Duhart, P.J. CONCUR.
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.