STATE OF OHIO v. RONDELL L. HILL
No. 100536
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
August 7, 2014
[Cite as State v. Hill, 2014-Ohio-3416.]
BEFORE: Rocco, P.J., Keough, J., and Kilbane, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-11-551296; RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 7, 2014
AFFIRMED
Rondell L. Hill, pro se
#624-139
Mansfield Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 788
Mansfield, Ohio 44901
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Kevin R. Filitraut
James M. Price
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Rondell L. Hill, proceeding pro se, appeals from the trial court‘s judgment entry of resentence after this court remanded Hill‘s case for that purpose in State v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98366, 2013-Ohio-578 (“Hill I“), appeal not accepted, 136 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2013-Ohio-3210, 991 N.E.2d 257.
{¶2} Hill presents five assignments of error. Four of them present additional challenges to his conviction as modified in Hill I. The second assignment of error challenges as “contrary to law” the sentence that the trial court imposed pursuant to this court‘s order of remand.
{¶3} Because the issues relating to his conviction and his trial counsel‘s performance are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and law of the case, they are inappropriate matters for consideration in this appeal, and Hill‘s assignments of error that relate to them are overruled. Moreover, because the trial court imposed the correct sentence upon remand, Hill‘s second assignment of error also is overruled. Hill‘s sentence is affirmed.
{¶4} A brief background to Hill‘s case is provided by quoting as follows from Hill I:
Defendant-appellant, Rondell L. Hill * * * , challenges his conviction and sentence for aggravated murder. Because we find there was insufficient evidence that Hill acted with prior calculation and design, one of the elements of aggravated murder, we modify Hill‘s conviction from aggravated murder to murder, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing.
* * *
After the state rested, the trial court denied Hill‘s Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal. Hill did not call any witnesses and did not testify in his own defense. The state requested a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of murder, which the court granted. The jury subsequently found Hill guilty of aggravated murder and the firearm specifications, and the trial court sentenced him to three years on the firearm specification, consecutive to 30 years for aggravated murder, i.e., life without parole eligibility until after 33 years in prison.
* * *
In his first assignment of error, Hill contends that the trial court erred in denying his Crim.R. 29(A) motion for acquittal because there was insufficient evidence that he committed aggravated murder.
* * *
The evidence in this case indicates a sudden eruption of events, not prior calculation and design. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence to support Hill‘s conviction for aggravated murder. There was, however, sufficient evidence that Hill committed murder in violation of
R.C. 2903.02 , which provides that “[n]o person shall purposefully cause the death of another.”* * * Hill‘s conviction for aggravated murder is modified to the lesser included offense of murder. * * *
The first assignment of error is sustained in part; Hill‘s conviction is modified accordingly.
In his second assignment of error, Hill contends that his conviction * * * was against the manifest weight of the evidence
* * * .
* * *
* * * In light of th[e] evidence [presented], Hill‘s conviction for murder is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. His second assignment of error is therefore overruled.
* * *
In his fourth assignment of error, Hill contends that he was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel because his lawyer did not request a jury instruction regarding self-defense.
* * *
There was no evidence that Hill had a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger and his only means of escape was to use force; rather, the testimony was that [the victim] did not have a gun and the argument never escalated into a physical fight. Furthermore, self-defense was inconsistent with Hill‘s theory of the case that he was not the shooter. Accordingly, Hill has failed to demonstrate that counsel‘s performance fell below an objective standard or that he was prejudiced by such performance.
The fourth assignment of error is therefore overruled.
* * *
In his sixth assignment of error, Hill argues that his sentence is contrary to law. In his seventh assignment of error, Hill contends that the trial court improperly gave him a longer sentence because he did not testify at trial or express remorse at sentencing. Because we are remanding for resentencing, these assignments of error are overruled as moot.
Hill‘s aggravated murder conviction is vacated, the conviction is modified to murder, and the matter is remanded for re-sentencing.
(Emphasis added; citations omitted.)
{¶6} Hill filed the instant appeal from the trial court‘s order of resentence. He presents the following assignments of error.
I. Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by
Section 10 Article I of the Ohio Constitution and theSixth andFourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when trial counsel failed to request a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter underR.C. 2903.03 and involuntary manslaughter underR.C. 2903.04 .II. Appellant‘s sentence is contrary to law.
III. Appellant‘s convictions are unconstitutional and denied Appellant of his
Fifth ,Sixth , andFourteenth Amendment rights to theUnited States Constitution andArticle I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution .IV. The trial court erred in denying Appellant‘s motion for acquittal as to the charges when the state failed to present sufficient evidence against the Appellant.
V. Appellant‘s convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence and Appellant seeks to have a new trial under
Criminal Rules 33(A) and (B) .
{¶7} Appellant‘s first, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error all present issues that result from this court‘s decision in Hill I to modify Hill‘s conviction. In effect, Hill seeks to vacate the finding of guilt on a charge of murder with firearm specifications. However, because the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept
{¶8} Accordingly, Hill‘s first, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error are overruled.
{¶9} In his second assignment of error, Hill asserts that the trial court imposed a sentence that is “contrary to law” because the trial court both at the sentencing hearing and in the journal entry failed to (1) impose fifteen “full” years, (2) mention anything about parole eligibility, and (3) mention that Hill “had a firearm on or about his person or under his control while committing the offense.” This court does not agree.
{¶10}
{¶11} This court previously has determined that the trial court was under no duty to pronounce specifically that Hill must serve a “full” fifteen years to life.
{¶12} As to Hill‘s sentence on the firearm specification, this court affirmed that portion of his sentence in Hill I by stating the following at ¶ 26-30:
The evidence demonstrated that both Hill and [the victim] were calm as they walked toward Hill‘s house but that their argument about the money quickly escalated again. Taylor testified that only a few moments later, he heard three shots, and then saw Hill put his gun in his pants and run away. We can reach no other conclusion from this evidence but that Hill‘s decision to kill * * * was * * * the result of the sudden eruption (again) of his argument with [the victim] about the money.
The fact that Hill shot [the victim] three times does not indicate prior calculation and design. * * * [T]he evidence was that the shots were fired in succession, indicating that the act was one continuous course of events. * * *
The evidence in this case indicates a sudden eruption of events, not prior calculation and design. Accordingly, there was insufficient evidence to support Hill‘s conviction for aggravated murder. There was, however, sufficient evidence that Hill committed murder in violation of
R.C. 2903.02 * * * .Accordingly, Hill‘s conviction for aggravated murder [with firearm specifications] is modified to the lesser included offense of murder. * * *
The first assignment of error is sustained in part; Hill‘s conviction is modified accordingly.
{¶14} Hill‘s second assignment of error is, accordingly, also overruled.
{¶15} Hill‘s sentence is affirmed.
It is ordered 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 conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
KENNETH A. ROCCO, PRESIDING JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR