STATE OF OHIO, Plаintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES DEADWILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 108488
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
April 23, 2020
2020-Ohio-1605
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.
Judgment: AFFIRMED. Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-17-622444-A.
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Brad S. Meyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
James J. Hofelich, for appellant.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant James Deadwiley (“Deadwiley“) appeals from his convictions for rape, attempted rape, and kidnapping with numerous specifications. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On November 1, 2017, Deadwiley was indicted on one count of rape in violation of
{¶ 3} Deadwiley initially entered a plea of not guilty to all charges. On February 8, 2019, Deadwiley waived his right to a jury trial on all sexually violent-predator specificаtions. On February 11, 2019, a jury trial on all other counts and specifications began.
{¶ 4} These charges arose from an incident in the early morning hours on May 25, 2014. The victim, O.H., testified at trial and described the events as follows. On May 24, 2014, O.H. had gone with her boyfriend, Brandon Crider (“Crider“), and their youngest child to a barbecue at Crider‘s friend‘s house. O.H. drank wine and played cards at the barbecue. Later that night, O.H. was ready to leave the barbecue but could not find her boyfriend. O.H. went outside and began to walk down the street towards St. Clair Avenue. The next thing O.H. remembered was waking up in the driveway behind Chambers Elementary School in East Cleveland. (Tr. 519-520.) Upon waking up and realizing where she was, she began walking towаrds her mother‘s house on Shaw Avenue. While walking, she sensed someone behind her and turned to see a man wearing a hooded sweatshirt approach her. The man
{¶ 5} O.H. was only wearing a shirt. A man in a truck drove by and stopped upon seeing O.H. crying. O.H. told the man she had been raped and asked him to drive her to her mother K.H.‘s (“K.H.“) house. Upon arriving, O.H. described what had happened and K.H. called the police. At trial, K.H. testified that whеn O.H. was dropped off, she was naked from the waist down, was shaking as though she was in shock, and appeared scared. K.H. also testified that O.H. had red marks on her neck and was complaining about pain in the back of her head.
{¶ 6} At trial, the state called Officer Tyler Smith (“Officer Smith“), who was an East Cleveland police officer at the time of the assault in this case. Around 2:30 a.m. on May 25, 2014, Officer Smith and his partner went to K.H.‘s house in East Cleveland, Ohio in response to a 911 call regarding a rape that had just occurred. Officer Smith testified that upon arriving at that address, he spoke to K.H., who then led the officers to O.H., who was sitting in a chair wearing a black shirt and a towel and was not wearing pants or underwear. Officer Smith testified that O.H. was very quiet, appeared to be in a daze, and looked “traumatized.” Officer Smith also recalled that O.H.‘s hair was a little messy and one of her cheeks was bruised.
{¶ 7} According to Officer Smith, O.H. told him that she had been walking home from a party in the area of East 152nd Street and St. Clair Avenue in Cleveland
{¶ 8} Officer Smith testified that he and other police officers then began to canvass the area in attempt to locate evidence or identify any witnesses or suspects that might be in the area. Other officers found a man, Melvin Ervin (“Ervin“), in the area very close to where O.H. said she was raped, so they questioned him. Ervin was voluntarily transported by the officers to the ambulance that was transporting O.H. to the hospital, and a cold stand was conducted. While O.H. was laying on a cot inside the ambulance, and Ervin was approximately 20 feet from the ambulance with a police car spotlight shining on him because it was dark, O.H. positively identified Ervin as one of her assailants. Officer Smith then went to the hospital where O.H. was examined, and subsequently went back to the scene to look for additional evidence.
{¶ 9} The state also called Denise Robinson (“Robinson“), who testified that she was the sexual-assault nurse examiner (“SANE“) who administered a SANE
{¶ 10} The state called Brittani Troyer (“Troyer“), a forensic scientist who received O.H.‘s rape kit in this case and sent the DNA evidence in it to be analyzed, and Andrew Sawin (“Sawin“), the DNA analyst who tested O.H.‘s rape kit. Sawin testified that Ervin was excluded as a contributor to the mixture of DNA contained in O.H.‘s rape kit. Sawin also testified that he determined that Deadwiley was a contributor to the DNA mixturе.
{¶ 11} The state also called Crider, who testified that he had a lot to drink at the party and ultimately passed out on the couch. He woke up the next morning to his phone ringing and his son crying. Crider testified that O.H.‘s family called him to tell him what had happened the night before. Crider testified that he went to see O.H. at the hospital that morning and toоk her home. Several days later, Crider gave a statement to the police.
{¶ 13} At the close of the state‘s case, defense counsel made a
{¶ 14} On February 12, 2019, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all three counts. On April 2, 2019, the court held a hearing on the specifications. The state presented evidence in the form of documentation relating to Deadwiley‘s prior convictions for attempted rape and corresponding classification as a sexual predator. The court ultimately found Deadwiley guilty of all specifications and proceeded to sentencing. The court heard from the prosecutor and defense counsel. The kidnapping count was merged for sentencing, and the court imposed a sentence
{¶ 15} Deadwiley appeals, presenting two assignments of error for our review.
Law and Analysis
{¶ 16} In his first assignment оf error, Deadwiley argues that his conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, Deadwiley argues that the inconsistencies in O.H.‘s story, as well as her misidentifications of her assailant, created a manifest miscarriage of justice.
{¶ 17} A manifest weight challenge attacks the quality of the evidence and questions whether the state met its burden of persuasion at trial. State v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99819, 2014-Ohio-387, ¶ 25, citing State v. Bowden, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92266, 2009-Ohio-3598, ¶ 13. When reviewing a manifest weight challenge, a court reviews the entire record, weighing all evidence and reasonable inferences and considering the credibility of the witnesses, to determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997).
{¶ 18} Deadwiley also emphasizes evidence that was not found or presented in this case, such as O.H.‘s missing clothing or any evidence of injury to her vagina. The absence of such evidence does not create a manifest miscarriage of justice, especially in the light of conclusive DNA evidence that Deadwiley had sexual contact
{¶ 19} In his second assignment of error, Deadwiley argues that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of various specifications because they were not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, Deadwiley argues that the evidence the state presented related to the specifications in this case was not properly authenticated. Further, Deadwiley asserts that the court did not provide any analysis with respect to the statutory factors it considered in determining that Deadwiley was a sexually violent predator.
{¶ 20} At the hearing on the specifications, the state presented evidence in the form of two certified journal entries reflecting Deadwiley‘s prior conviction and sentence for attempted rape, as well as documentation from that sentence reflecting the court‘s classification of Deadwiley as a sexual рredator. The state also introduced a report from the sheriff‘s office comparing Deadwiley‘s fingerprints to the fingerprints of the defendant in the prior case. The state presented this exhibit as a link between the two cases, and Deadwiley did not contest his identity at this hearing. Deadwiley concedes that the certifiеd journal entries are self-authenticating documents pursuant to
{¶ 21} Unlike a manifest weight challenge, the test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the prosecution met its burden of production at trial. Bowden, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92266, 2009-Ohio-3598, at ¶ 12. The relevant inquiry is whethеr, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d at 386, 678 N.E.2d 541.
{¶ 22} As an initial matter, we note that although defense counsel objected when the state presented evidenсe at the hearing on the specifications, the objection was not related to the authentication of the evidence. Instead, defense counsel objected by stating: “[w]e don‘t believe that these exhibits that the State is offering to the Court is sufficient to establish that my client did engage in sexual conduct with this victim and/or that hе was previously found to be a sexual predator.” (Tr. 702.)
{¶ 23} Essentially, the objection was arguing that the state‘s evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on the specifications. Because the objection was not related to the admissibility of the evidence, our review of this issue is limited to plain error. The documents presented by the state were self-authenticating certified records pursuant to
(2) For purposes of division (H)(1) of this section, any of the following factors may be considered as evidence tending to indicate that there is a likelihood that the person will engage in the future in one or more sexually violent offenses:
(a) The person has been convicted two or more times, in separate criminal actions, of a sexually oriented offense or a child-victim oriented offense. For purposes of this division, convictions that result from or are connected with the same act or result from offenses at the same time are one conviction, and a conviction set aside pursuant to law is not a conviction.
(b) The person has a documented history from childhood, into the juvenile developmental years, that exhibits sexually deviant behavior.
(c) Available information or evidence suggests that the person chronically commits offenses with a sexual motivation.
(d) The person has committed one or more offenses in which the person has tortured or engaged in ritualistic acts with one or more victims.
(e) The person has committed one or more offenses in which one or more victims were physically harmed to the degree that the particular victim‘s life was in jeopardy.
(f) Any other relevant evidence.
{¶ 25} Deadwiley argues that nо evidence was presented with regard to any of these factors, and the trial court did not engage in any analysis of the factors. We disagree.
{¶ 27} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordеred that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s convictiоn having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J., CONCUR