State Of Ohio v. Helms
| Decision Date | 29 September 2010 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 08 CR 382.,CASE NO. 08 MA 199 |
| Citation | 2010 Ohio 4872 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. TARAN HELMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee: Attorney Paul J. Gains Prosecuting Attorney Attorney Ralph M. Rivera Assistant Prosecuting Attorney.
For Defendant-Appellant: Attorney Gary Van Brocklin.
{¶1} This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court, the parties' briefs and their oral arguments before this court. Taran Helms appeals the September 29, 2008 decision of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas that sentenced Helms to a total of fifty years in prison, subsequent to a jury finding of guilty on counts of attempted murder, a first degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A) and R.C. 2903.02(A)(D); felonious assault, a second degree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2)(D); aggravated robbery, a first degree felony in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)(C); kidnapping, a first degree felony in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2)(C), and accompanying firearm specifications, pursuant to R.C. 2941.145.
{¶2} On appeal, Helms argues that the trial court erroneously failed to merge his felonious assault conviction with the attempted murder conviction, his aggravated robbery conviction with the kidnapping conviction, as well as all of his firearm specifications. Helms contends that the trial court's denial of the motion to change venue constituted an abuse of discretion given the extensive pretrial publicity for his case. Finally, Helms argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Helms's motion for relief from prejudicial joinder and trying Helms together with his co-defendant, Hattie Gilbert. Upon, review Helms's arguments are meritorious in part and with respect to sentencing only.
{¶3} Pursuant to recent Ohio Supreme Court precedent, attempted murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) and felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) are allied offenses of similar import. We conclude that Helms did not commit the offenses of attempted murder and felonious assault with separate animus, and that the convictions must merge. Although aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1)(C) and kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(2)(C) are allied offenses of similar import, we find that Helms committed the two offenses with separate animus, and that the trial court's decision not to merge the two offenses was proper. Helms committed all of the charged offenses as part of a continuous transaction within the same time, space and purpose, and thus the trial court was required to merge Helms's firearm specificationsinstead of imposing them consecutively.
{¶4} In Helms's assignment of error regarding venue, he has only presented evidence that there existed a great deal of pretrial publicity, which is not enough on its own to demonstrate that the denial of the motion to change venue was an abuse of discretion. Moreover, there was no evidence presented that the jury panel was in fact tainted. Finally, the trial court took the appropriate measures to redact Helms's identity from his co-defendant's confession, and thus the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Helms's motion for relief from prejudicial joinder.
{¶5} Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. Specifically, all of Helms's convictions are affirmed, to the extent that merger is not required. The firearm specifications must be merged pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(D)(1)(b). Finally, the case must be remanded for a new sentencing hearing. At resentencing, the State must elect which conviction, attempted murder or felonious assault, should merge into the other for sentencing purposes, pursuant to the authority of Williams and Whitfield, and the trial court should effect all mergers pursuant to the State's election.
{¶6} Taran Helms and Hattie Gilbert were indicted by a Mahoning County Grand Jury on counts of attempted murder, felonious assault, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping, as well as four accompanying firearm specifications. The charges arose from an incident on March 24, 2008, when the victim, Joseph Kaluza, was robbed and shot while on the way to make a bank deposit for his employer, a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant.
{¶7} On June 20, 2008, Helms filed a motion for relief from prejudicial joinder, arguing that the co-defendants' defenses may be antagonistic. Helms also stated that Gilbert had confessed to the police regarding her involvement in the robbery, that Gilbert's confession inculpates Helms as she identified Helms as an accomplice, and that Gilbert's likely decision not to testify would present a Confrontation Clause problem for Helms. On August 5, 2008, Helms re-filed this motion in a more abbreviated form, as the first motionwas struck due to its unreasonable length. On August 28, 2008, the trial court denied Helms's motion on the condition that the State redact any indication of Helms's existence in any portion of Gilbert's statement that might be presented at trial.
{¶8} Helms first filed a motion for change of venue on September 3, 2008, arguing that extensive pretrial publicity about the case necessitated a change of venue. Helms attached approximately 35 articles from newspaper and internet sources, ranging from lengthy detailed articles to single-line references, regarding the robbery, the investigation and legal proceedings, and the medical recovery of the victim. Helms later supplemented his motion for change of venue, attaching a DVD of television news coverage of the incident. Helms also filed a motion for sequestered individual voir dire regarding pretrial publicity.
{¶9} During the hearing on the motions, the trial court stated that it would rule on the motion for change of venue after voir dire had been conducted. The trial court initially denied, but later granted Helms's motion for sequestered individual voir dire regarding pretrial publicity.
{¶10} The trial court began voir dire on September 8, 2008. During the process, the trial court asked the prospective jurors whether any of them knew about the case through firsthand information, interactions within the community, or media coverage. The trial court then conducted individual voir dire of all prospective jurors who had indicated any familiarity with the case. The jury veniremen were asked about the extent of their knowledge about the case, and further asked whether they could set aside what they had heard and decide the case solely upon the evidence presented at trial. Following this questioning, the trial court excused a number of veniremen who had formed fixed opinions due to pretrial publicity or who were otherwise unsuitable.
{¶11} During a break in voir dire and out of the presence of any veniremen, counsel for defendant Gilbert informed the trial court that there was writing above a urinal in the men's second-floor restroom which read: "Remember Joe Paluka [sic]," and "KFC," as well as a racial epithet directed at the defendants. Counsel stated that he had used the same restroom the day before and did not see that writing. The deputy statedthat they did not see this writing the night before, and assumed that someone must have written the message during that day of voir dire. The trial court brought the jury venire back in, and asked if any of the men had used the second-floor men's restroom that day. Of the three veniremen who indicated that they had used that restroom, two had not noticed anything written on the wall, and one had not noticed anything related to this case written on the wall. None of those three veniremen served on the jury panel for this case.
{¶12} Subsequent to the completion of voir dire, Helms renewed his motion for change of venue, and filed a supplemental memorandum in support of the motion. The trial court denied the motion.
{¶13} The joint trial for Helms and Gilbert commenced on September 15, 2008. Joseph Kaluza testified that he was a manager for a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant, and was generally responsible for driving the restaurant's deposits to the bank. While Kaluza was en route to the bank on March 24, 2008, a woman in another car decelerated suddenly in front of Kaluza, causing him to hit the rear end of her vehicle. Kaluza immediately called the police and the area manager for his restaurant. The woman, Gilbert, got out of her car and asked to use Kaluza's phone. After briefly using it, Gilbert returned the phone through Kaluza's open passenger window and returned to her car. Shortly thereafter, a man appeared on the driver's side of Kaluza's car, and shot Kaluza in the neck, instantly paralyzing him. The man, Helms, continued walking to Gilbert's car, motioned for her to leave, then returned to Kaluza's car and pushed it onto a side street in front of an abandoned house. Helms then looked in the car for the deposit bag, and once he had found the deposit bag, containing $300.00, he demanded to know where the rest of the money was and threatened to shoot Kaluza in the head. Kaluza testified that someone in a truck stopped and asked if Kaluza and Helms needed help, and Helms declined. Helms then hurriedly grabbed another bag in the car (which turned out to be trash) and ran off. Kaluza testified that Kimberly Helms, the defendant's mother, used to work at Kaluza's restaurant and knew the deposit procedure, but she was fired the prior spring for theft.
{¶14} Kandace Johnson testified that she lived in a house a short distance awayfrom where the incident occurred. Johnson stated that she saw the car accident occur,...
To continue reading
Request your trial