State v. Blevins

• Decision Date: 26 June 2019
• Docket Number: No. 18CA2,18CA2
• Citation: 140 N.E.3d 27,2019 Ohio 2744
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Justin Ray BLEVINS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

140 N.E.3d 27

2019 Ohio 2744

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Justin Ray BLEVINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18CA2

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Pickaway County.

Decided June 26, 2019

Dennis C. Belli, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Judy C. Wolford, Pickaway County Prosecutor, and Heather MJ Carter, Assistant Pickaway County Prosecutor, Circleville, Ohio, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Smith, P.J.

{¶1} Appellant, Justin Ray Blevins, appeals his convictions and sentences for aggravated murder, murder, and felonious assault. On appeal, Appellant contends that 1) his conviction for aggravated murder is not supported by sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design; 2) a defective voluntary manslaughter instruction rose to the level of plain error and deprived him of his constitutional right to a jury determination of his guilt of a less serious offense than the aggravated murder and murder counts of the indictment; 3) his exclusion from the proceedings involving responses to the jury's questions violated his Crim.R. 43 and constitutional rights to be present for all critical stages of the proceedings; 4) the trial court's incorrect, incomplete, and confusing responses to the jury's questions amounted to an abuse of discretion and deprived him of his right to a fundamentally fair trial and reliable jury verdict; 5) he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel due to the combined prejudicial impact of multiple instances of deficient performance; 6) the jury's verdicts of guilty for aggravated murder, murder and felonious assault are against the manifest weight of the evidence; and 7) the record clearly and convincingly does not support the imposition of a life prison term with parole eligibility after serving thirty years.

{¶2} Because we conclude Appellant's conviction for aggravated murder was supported by sufficient evidence of prior calculation and design, we find no merit to Appellant's first assignment of error and it is overruled. In light of our conclusion that Appellant was not entitled to a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter, he cannot demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the trial court's alleged error. Thus, we find no merit to Appellant's second assignment of error and it is also overruled. Likewise, because we find that that the trial court's provision of written answers to the jury in response to the jury's written questions did not constitute a critical stage of the proceedings, Appellant's statutory and constitutional rights to be present were not violated. As such, Appellant's third assignment of error is also overruled.

{¶3} With regard to Appellant's fourth assignment of error, because the jury's first question dealt with the voluntary manslaughter instruction and because we have found Appellant was not entitled to that instruction, any error by the court in answering the question was harmless. Further, as we find no error in the answer provided by the trial court in response to the jury's second question, we find no merit to Appellant's fourth assignment of error and it is likewise overruled. Additionally, in light of our conclusion that trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance and that Appellant failed to show cumulative error affected the outcome of the proceedings, Appellant's fifth assignment of error is overruled. Likewise, Appellant's sixth assignment of error is overruled because we have found his convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Finally, because Appellant's sentence is supported by the record and is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law, Appellant's seventh assignment of error has no merit and is also overruled.

{¶4} Having found no merit in any of the assignments of error raised by Appellant, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

FACTS

{¶5} Appellant, Justin Ray Blevins, was indicted on July 7, 2017, on four felony counts which included: 1) aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) ; 2) murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) ; 3) murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B) ; and felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2). Counts one through three were unspecified felonies and count four was a second-degree felony. Additionally, counts one through four all contained firearm specifications which specified the use of a .40 caliber handgun. The indictment stemmed from an investigation relating to the death of the Samuel Nicholson, the victim herein, a sixteen-year-old male residing in an apartment rented by Darrell Arnett.

{¶6} The investigation into Nicholson's death began with a 911 call at approximately 5:30 a.m. on the morning of June 11, 2017, from Arnett's sister, who lived in the same apartment complex as Arnett and Nicholson. The call initially reported a burglary and a fight. When law enforcement arrived at the scene they found Arnett waiting outside and subsequently found the victim inside the apartment, deceased, from what appeared to be multiple gunshot wounds

. Once the scene was secured and evidence gathered, Arnett was taken to the police station for questioning where he was cooperative and voluntarily gave a statement.

{¶7} Arnett reported that he had known the victim since they were children and that he had allowed the victim to live with him because he had nowhere else to stay. He reported he went to bed the night before and the apartment was empty with the exception of the victim. He stated he awoke in the early morning to the sound of gunshots and then heard the victim yell "What the fuck?" He then heard additional gunshots. He reported he got up, grabbed his hatchet and ran downstairs where he saw the victim lying in the floor. He stated he caught a glimpse of someone exiting the apartment wearing red shorts and a red shirt. He reported that he kicked the victim and told him to get up but he didn't respond. He reported that the assailant returned to the apartment and an altercation ensued. He reported that he scratched the assailant and that the assailant placed him in a headlock. He explained that when he was finally able to free himself, he ran out of the apartment to his sister's apartment and asked her to call for help. Arnett advised law enforcement he believed the assailant was Appellant, Justin Blevins. DNA samples were taken from underneath Arnett's fingernails which ultimately matched Appellant's DNA. Arnett's statements along with law enforcement's subsequent investigation led to Appellant's arrest and subsequent indictment.

{¶8} The matter proceeded to a jury a trial on December 11, 2017. The State introduced several witnesses, including: 1) Darrell Arnett, the victim's roommate; 2) Sergeant James Zimmerman, who first arrived at the scene and confirmed the victim was deceased; 3) Dr. John Ellis, the county coroner; 4) Special Agent Todd Fortner, who took photographs and helped process the evidence; 5) Logan Schepeler, a forensic scientist in the DNA section of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation (hereinafter "BCI") who confirmed the Appellant's DNA matched the sample taken from under Arnett's fingernails; 6) Andrew McClelland, a forensic scientist and firearms examiner with BCI, who examined the gun recovered from the scene, along with the spent and unspent bullets and cartridge cases recovered as a result of the investigation; 7) Lieutenant Detective Jeffrey George, the lead detective on the case from the Ashville Police Department; 8) Chloe Brady, a mutual friend of the victim and Appellant; 9) Dwight Haddox, the boyfriend of Appellant's mother, who had contact with Appellant in the days following the murder; and 10) Detective Phil Roar, who conducted a search of the cell phones pertinent to the investigation. Appellant introduced five witnesses, and also testified on his own behalf.

{¶9} Pertinent to this appeal, Darrell Arnett testified at trial that he was able to identify Appellant by his voice because he had viewed several videos Appellant had placed on the internet. He also testified he had seen Appellant on prior occasions. Sergeant James Zimmerman testified that when he responded to the scene he found the apartment in a disheveled state with furniture knocked over. He also testified he found a hatchet and a semi-automatic pistol near the couch. Dr. John Ellis, the county coroner, testified that the apartment was a mess when he observed it. He testified that when he encountered the victim, it appeared he had been rolled over by someone. Dr. Ellis testified that the victim sustained three bullet wounds

to his head, three bullet wounds to his torso, four bullet wounds to his upper left extremities, and four bullet wounds to his upper right extremities. Dr. Ellis went over each entrance and exit wound and testified that he suspected some of the bullets created more than one entrance and exit wound. He testified that in his opinion ten or eleven shots were fired. Importantly, Dr. Ellis testified that several of the shots entered posteriorly and exited anteriorly, which indicates the victim was shot from behind. Dr. Ellis also testified that the trajectory of a shot that entered the victim's jaw and exited his chin was in a downward motion, rather than an upward motion, as testified to later by Appellant. Further, Dr. Ellis testified that the shots to the victim's upper extremities suggested "defensive wounds" from where the victim was likely holding his arms up to defend himself. Dr. Ellis testified that one of the shots to the victim's head had a gunpowder burn, suggesting it was a contact wound. Lastly, Dr. Ellis testified that the victim died from multiple gunshot wounds.

{¶10} Special Agent Todd Fortner testified that the condition of the apartment showed obvious signs of a struggle. He testified that he recovered the murder weapon, which was a Daewoo .40 caliber Smith and Wesson (hereinafter "S & W") semi-automatic pistol, which is rare.¹ He testified that he found the gun with an empty magazine seated in it, with the slide...