State v. WilliamsState v. Williams
v.
Ernest Williams Appellant/Cross-appellee
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee/cross-appellant.
Michael H. Stahl, for appellant/cross-appellee.
*****
ZMUDA, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ernest Williams, appeals the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to seven years in prison after a jury found appellant guilty of felonious assault with a firearm specification.
{¶ 2} On the afternoon of November 1, 2019, Alanna Walker let her dog outside without a leash. The dog, a pit bull, ran to a nearby residence and jumped onto Beverly Crockett while she was outside, knocking her to the ground and injuring her. A couple hours later, Crockett‘s daughter, Londa Coker, granddaughter, Tiarra Ali, and grandson, Keith Minor, approached the home in which Walker resided with her boyfriend, Jovan Johnson, and knocked on the door. Appellant and his girlfriend, Ashley Talbert, were inside the residence at the time.
{¶ 3} Once everyone exited Walker‘s residence, a fight broke out between Johnson and Minor, and Ali and Talbert. According to the state‘s witnesses, appellant then threatened Ali and went inside Walker‘s residence where he retrieved a firearm. Upon returning outside, appellant fired several shots toward the crowd of people standing outside the residence. One of the shots struck Ali in the back. Thereafter, appellant and Talbert fled the scene.
{¶ 4} Eventually, Toledo Police Department detective Andre Cowell prepared a photo array, which was subsequently blindly administered upon Coker, Ali, and Minor by detectives Richard Fisher and Roy Kennedy. The photo array was generated based upon Coker‘s description of the shooter, whom she described as a five-foot, three-inch tall African American man weighing between 160 and 180 pounds with dreadlocks.
{¶ 6} Ultimately, all three witnesses identified the same individual, appellant, as the shooter. As a result, appellant was indicted on December 5, 2019, and charged with one count of felonious assault in violation of
{¶ 7} On February 7, 2020, appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence of his identification by Coker, Ali, and Minor following the administration of the photo array. In his motion, appellant argued that the photo array was unduly suggestive because he was the only individual pictured with dreadlocks.
{¶ 8} One week later, on February 14, 2020, the state filed its memorandum in opposition to appellant‘s motion to suppress, in which it emphasized the physical similarities of the men depicted in the photo array, including the similarity between appellant‘s dreadlocks and one of the men‘s braids.
{¶ 10} For its first witness, the state called Coker. She explained that she was at work when she received a call on November 1, 2019, informing her that Crockett, with whom she resides, was attacked by a pit bull. Coker left work and went home to check on her mother. Minor and Ali were at the residence when Coker arrived.
{¶ 11} After checking on Crockett, Coker, Minor, and Ali confronted Walker about the dog attack. The altercations described above resulted, and according to Coker, she and another female broke up the fights. Coker testified that appellant then returned to the residence and came back outside with a firearm, which he fired twice. Coker stated that Ali was struck with the second shot. Thereafter, Coker saw the shooter got into a gray Buick sedan and departed.
{¶ 12} As to her identification of appellant as the shooter, Coker stated that she was able to clearly see him at the time of the shooting. She described appellant as a “black male, about 5‘3“, 5‘4“, I want to say 160, 180 pounds, between there, and he had dreads.” Following the shooting, Coker met with detective Cowell and provided him with this description of the shooter.
{¶ 13} Using Coker‘s description, Cowell created the aforementioned photo array. Detective Fisher then showed the photo array to Coker approximately two hours after the
{¶ 14} On cross examination, Coker acknowledged that only one person in the photo array had dreadlocks, and further confirmed that she knew the difference between dreadlocks and braids. Coker also testified that appellant‘s dreadlocks were a distinguishing characteristic, although she was not asked, and did not indicate, whether her identification of appellant was based solely on his hairstyle.
{¶ 15} As its second witness, the state called Ali. She testified that she received a call from Crockett on the afternoon of the dog attack. Because she lives nearby, she decided to visit Crockett. On her way, Ali called Coker and Minor to inform them of what happened. Once all three arrived at Crockett‘s residence, the group proceeded to Walker‘s residence to confront her about the dog attack. Ali testified that, while she was talking to Walker, she saw a vehicle pull up with several individuals, including appellant, inside. An argument ensued, ultimately culminating in the fight.
{¶ 16} According to Ali, she heard shots being fired as she was walking away from the scene and toward her vehicle. Ali stated that she heard “five, six” rounds, one of which struck her in the lower spine. Once she fell to the ground, she noticed that appellant was the one who shot her.
{¶ 18} On cross examination, Ali was asked about appellant‘s dreadlocks in the photo array. Ali responded by referring to the individual with braided hair in the photo array, and said: “I don‘t know if five got dreads. I‘m not sure how he got his hair, but Ernest don‘t even look like he has dreads in this picture.” Ali went on to testify: “From the looks of it, I really can‘t tell if he had dreads or not, I just know his face.”
{¶ 19} Following Ali‘s testimony, the state called Minor as its third witness. Minor testified that he and appellant were involved in a fight following the dog attack on November 1, 2019. After the fight ended, Minor saw appellant “run to his house and he came out the backyard somewhere and he was standing like in the back driveway, and he shot like * * * four shots.” Minor confirmed that he observed appellant fire his weapon.
{¶ 20} After the shooting, Minor spoke with detective Cowell and described the shooter as a man with dreadlocks who was approximately 5‘6” tall. Minor did not know
{¶ 21} On December 24, 2019, Minor was shown the photo array prepared by Cowell. He identified appellant as the shooter. At the suppression hearing, the state asked Minor what characteristics allowed him to identify appellant, and Minor responded: “His dreads, and it was him. It looks just like him. It was him. * * * [J]ust his dreads and the way his face looked.” On cross examination, Minor elaborated that he was “really familiar with [appellant‘s] face,” and that he “knew who [appellant] was from his facial features because I‘m over my grandmother‘s house all the time.”
{¶ 22} For its fourth and fifth witnesses, the state called detectives Fisher and Kennedy, respectively. After explaining the training they received as blind administrators of photo arrays, the officers each testified that they administered the photo array in this case as blind administrators. Specifically, Fisher administered the photo array to Coker and Ali, and Kennedy administered the photo array to Minor. The officers testified that they had no prior knowledge of the case or any individuals, including appellant, who were involved in the case. Further, they both stated that they did not suggest which photo the witnesses should select.
{¶ 23} Finally, the state called detective Cowell to testify as its sixth witness. Cowell began his testimony by outlining the training he received in the area of preparing photo arrays. Relevant here, Cowell stated that his preparation of photo arrays generally
{¶ 24} As to the photo array he prepared in this case, Cowell stated that the suspect was described as follows: “A black male. I don‘t remember the exact clothes description, but dreadlocks in his hair. And they had mentioned they had seen him there previously so they knew that that was the same person because they had seen him there on prior occasions.” After receiving this description, Cowell identified appellant and entered him into the program that creates the photo array. Cowell then selected other individuals who share a similar appearance based upon sex, race, age, height, weight, hair, eye color, and facial hair. In Cowell‘s estimation, the individuals depicted in the photo array shared similar complexions, builds, and facial features. As to why appellant was the only individual with dreadlock in the photo array, Cowell explained that the program he used to create the photo array does not select for dreadlocks.
{¶ 25} At the conclusion of Cowell‘s testimony, the trial court took the matter under advisement. On September 10, 2020, the trial court held a pretrial hearing at which it recited the testimony provided during the suppression hearing, found that the photo array was not unduly suggestive, and thus denied appellant‘s motion to suppress.
{¶ 26} On April 26, 2021, the matter proceeded to a three-day jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial, appellant was found guilty of felonious assault with a firearm
B. Assignments of Error
{¶ 27} On appeal, appellant assigns the following errors for our review:
Assignment of Error I: The trial court erred when denying Mr. Williams’ Motion to Suppress the results of the overly suggestive photo identification line-up, in violation of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions.
Assignment of Error II: Mr. Williams was denied his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial when his pre-trial incarceration exceeded one year and was very nearly two years.
{¶ 28} In its cross-appeal, the state asserts the following assignment of error:
Pursuant to the recently enacted Reagan Tokes Act, all defendants convicted of a non-life felony of the first or second degree that was committed on or after March 22, 2019 must receive an indefinite sentence.
II. Analysis
A. The Photo Array
{¶ 29} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the photo array administered in this case was unduly suggestive because appellant was the only individual with dreadlocks pictured in the array.
{¶ 31} We have previously explained that “[p]hoto array evidence is suppressed only if the identification, or method of identification, is unduly suggestive and unreliable.” State v. Heflin, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1268, 2011-Ohio-4134, ¶ 17, citing State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424, 438, 588 N.E.2d 819 (1992), citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). “In addition, if a pretrial photographic identification is followed by an eyewitness identification at trial, the photographic identification can be suppressed only if the procedure was suggestive enough to create ‘a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.‘” State v. Gaines, 6th Dist. No. WD-08-058, 2010-Ohio-91, ¶ 15, quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968).
{¶ 32} The burden of establishing that the identification procedure was unduly suggestive rests with the defendant. Heflin at ¶ 17, citing State v. Harris, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19796, 2004-Ohio-3570, ¶ 19. “If the defendant meets his or her
{¶ 33} In Heflin, we reviewed other Ohio appellate cases involving challenges to photo arrays, and concluded: “Where the other men depicted in the photo array with the defendant all appeared relatively similar in age, features, skin tone, facial hair, dress, and photo background, the photo array was not impermissibly suggestive.” Id. at ¶ 18, citing State v. Jacobs, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 99-CA-110, 2002-Ohio-5240, ¶ 18, and State v. Lampkin, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-09-1270, 2010-Ohio-4934, rev‘d on other grounds, State v. Lampkin, 130 Ohio St.3d 270, 2011-Ohio-5715, 957 N.E.2d 770. Because the photo array shown to the witnesses in that case depicted individuals with skin tones and facial features that were similar to the defendant‘s, we found that the photo array was not unduly suggestive. Id. at ¶ 21.
{¶ 34} Similarly, in State v. Williams, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-18-024, 2019-Ohio-5144, we found that a photo array was not unduly suggestive where the officer who administered the array created it using computer software that generated pictures of five other men who were of a similar age and similar physical characteristics (hair, eye color, and race) to the defendant. Id. at ¶ 12. We noted that the defendant was not placed into the first slot in the photo array and the administering officer did not know the suspect‘s identity or if a suspect was even present in the photo lineup. Id.
{¶ 36} Notwithstanding slight differences in hairstyle, the remaining identifying characteristics of the individuals selected for the photo array are similar to appellant‘s physical features. Indeed, all of the individuals are African American men that appear to be similar in age, skin tone, and eye color. Moreover, all of the men have similar facial hair and the background of all the photos is nondescript. Therefore, we find that appellant has not met his burden of demonstrating that the identification procedure used in this case was unduly suggestive. For this reason, we find that the trial court properly denied appellant‘s motion to suppress.
{¶ 37} Accordingly, appellant‘s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 38} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charges against him based upon speedy trial violations.
{¶ 39} The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the United States and Ohio Constitutions. State v. Adams, 43 Ohio St.3d 67, 68, 538 N.E.2d 1025 (1989). “In reviewing a denial of a motion to dismiss based on an appellant‘s right to a speedy trial, we apply a de novo standard of review.” State v. Smith, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-14-1224, 2016-Ohio-150, ¶ 7, citing State v. Browand, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 06CA009053, 2007-Ohio-4342, ¶ 10.
{¶ 40} Ohio‘s speedy trial statute,
{¶ 41} Here, appellant was arrested on November 26, 2019. The jury trial in this case began on April 26, 2021, 516 days after appellant‘s arrest. Therefore, more than 270 days elapsed from the time appellant was arrested until the start of trial. However, several tolling events occurred during this time period.
{¶ 42} The first tolling event took place on January 14, 2020, when appellant appeared before the trial court for a pretrial and requested a continuance. Under
{¶ 43} Next, appellant filed his motion to suppress on February 7, 2020. Appellant‘s motion to suppress was decided on September 10, 2020, a total of 215 days. “The time period within which a defendant must be brought to trial is tolled from the day of the filing of a motion to suppress until the day the trial court rules on the motion,
{¶ 44} In early March 2020, the trial court suspended its operations in light of the Covid-19 public health emergency. During that time, the trial court issued an entry granting appellant‘s request to reschedule his trial from May 4, 2020, to June 1, 2020. On June 1, 2020, the court called the matter for a suppression hearing and trial via Zoom, but appellant requested that the suppression hearing be rescheduled for June 24, 2020, and asked to have the trial rescheduled for July 27, 2020. The trial court granted appellant‘s request. On June 24, 2020, the trial court called the matter for a suppression hearing, but appellant again asked that the matter be rescheduled, this time until July 27, 2020. The trial court granted appellant‘s request. Finally, the suppression hearing began on July 27, 2020. Due to the unavailability of detective Cowell, the matter had to be continued until August 13, 2020. Less than one month later, on September 10, 2020, the trial court issued its decision denying appellant‘s motion to suppress.
{¶ 46} On October 6, 2020, appellant appeared before the trial court for a pretrial. Appellant‘s defense counsel informed the trial court that appellant wished to retain private counsel, and appellant addressed the court, stating that his family was trying to retain a different attorney on his behalf due to his dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel. Appellant then requested a continuance to give him the time necessary to secure counsel. The trial court granted the request and continued the matter until October 27, 2020, a total of 21 days.
{¶ 47} In sum, the foregoing tolling events total 257 days. Reducing the 516-day time period during which appellant was awaiting trial by this tolling period, appellant was brought to trial no longer than 259 days after his arrest. Since he was brought to trial
{¶ 48} Accordingly, appellant‘s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
C. Imposition of a Definite Sentence
{¶ 49} In the state‘s sole assignment of error, it argues that the trial court erred by imposing a definite sentence for an offense that is subject to the indefinite sentencing requirements of the Reagan Tokes Act.
{¶ 50} Under
{¶ 51} The portion of the Reagan Tokes Act relevant to this assignment is codified in
For a felony of the second degree committed on or after [March 22, 2019], the prison term shall be an indefinite prison term with a stated minimum term selected by the court of two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight years and a maximum term that is determined pursuant to section 2929.144 of the Revised Code * * *.
{¶ 52} Here, appellant committed his offense on November 1, 2019, after the effective date of the Reagan Tokes Act and thus subject to the indefinite sentencing
{¶ 53} Accordingly, we find the state‘s assignment of error well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 54} In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part. The trial court‘s aggregate seven-year sentence is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing in accordance with the indefinite provisions of the Reagan Tokes Act. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J. CONCURS AND WRITES SEPARATELY.
JUDGE
State of Ohio v. Ernest Williams L-21-1111
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 55} I concur in the majority decision, and I agree with its conclusion with respect to Williams‘s first assignment of error that the trial court did not err in denying Williams‘s motion to suppress the pre-trial identification evidence on the basis that the photo array was impermissibly suggestive. I write separately only to emphasize that a photo array may be impermissibly suggestive where the witness describes the suspect by reference to a unique characteristic—such as dreadlocks—and the defendant‘s photo is the only photo in the array bearing that characteristic. See Hodges v. Commonwealth, 613 S.E.2d 834, 853-854 (Va.App.2005), rev‘d on other grounds Hodges v.
{¶ 56} Here, in addition to a variety of other features, the witnesses all described that the suspect had dreadlocks. But it is not entirely clear from Williams‘s photo whether he even had dreadlocks. It looks as though (1) his hair is cropped and a shadow
{¶ 57} Additionally, even where a photo array is deemed suggestive, “[p]hoto array evidence is suppressed only if the identification, or method of identification, is unduly suggestive and unreliable.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Heflin, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-10-1268, 2011-Ohio-4134, ¶ 17. Reliability is determined under the totality of the circumstances. Id. Factors to be considered include: “(1) the victim‘s opportunity to view the defendant during the crime, (2) the victim‘s degree of attention, (3) the accuracy of the victim‘s prior description, if any, of the defendant, (4) the victim‘s certainty, and (5) the amount of time that has elapsed between the offense and the identification.” Id.
{¶ 58} Here, as the majority summarizes, the victim and other eyewitnesses did not know Williams‘s name before the shooting, but they were certain of their identification of him because they had seen him before and recognized him. L.C. testified that she had seen Williams before “going in and out of next door.” T.A.
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/.