State v. Paskins
| Decision Date | 10 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021 CA 00033 |
| Citation | 200 N.E.3d 684 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tyler PASKINS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
CHRISTOPHER A. REAMER, Fairfield County Prosecutor's Office, 239 West Main Street, Suite 101, Lancaster, OH 43130, For Plaintiff-Appellee.
BRIAN A. SMITH, 123 South Miller Road, Ste. 250, Fairlawn, OH 44333, For Defendant-Appellant.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Tyler Paskins ["Paskins"] appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury trial in the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶2} On December 17, 2020, the Fairfield County grand jury issued a two-count indictment finding probable cause that Paskins committed the offenses of Robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), a felony of the second degree and Felonious Assault, a violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree.
{¶3} Michael Pound was homeless in November 2020 and had stayed multiple times at a residence located at 220 Washington Avenue in Lancaster, Ohio. The residence was rented by James Villers and frequented by multiple individuals. Pound had twenty years of drug addiction as well as criminal convictions attributed to his ongoing addiction.
{¶4} Sometime during the evening of November 25, 2020, approximately one hour before the events at Villers's residence took place, Pound was "dope sick" when he was approached on the street by Brandon Reed and Chuck Boystel. 2T. at 224; 253.1 According to Reed, Boystel punched Pound two times in the face, knocking Pound out. Id. Pound's head made an audible sound as it hit the concrete sidewalk. 2T. at 254. Reed and Boystel continued walking away. 2T. at 225. Sometime later, Reed walked back to check on Pound only to find that Pound was not there. Id. at 226.
{¶5} Later, Reed was working with Paskins on installing a camera system on the front porch of Villers home. Pound and his girlfriend Cheyenne Randolph were inside the home asleep. Pound woke up "dope sick" and vomited on a table in the living room area and then went to the bathroom adjacent to the kitchen area. When Randolph, who was pregnant at that time, went to the bathroom to check on Pound, he hit her in the stomach. Randolph screamed for help. 2T. at 314. Randolph then returned to the living room and began cleaning up the vomit, after which she sat down on the couch. Id. at 314-315. Pound went to the kitchen. Id. at 316; 357. Randolph testified that she was afraid of Pound. 2T. at 359. She ran into a nearby bedroom to get away from Pound after Pound came out of the bathroom.
{¶6} Paskins and Reed enter the house and immediately confront Pound. Pound is waving his hands and backing up when Paskins punched Pound in the face knocking Pound to the ground. 2T. at 230; 233-234; 260; 317; 3T. at 758. Paskins and Reed continued to punch and kick Pound as he lay balled up on the floor. 3T. at 452-453; 698-699; 700. Paskins struck Pound on the right side of Pound's face. 3T. at 523-525; 699.
{¶7} After Reed and Paskins walked away, Pound ran to a nearby bedroom. Randolph and another woman, Babette Beatty, were inside that bedroom. Pound did not accost either woman; rather, he attempted to block the door. Paskins, Reed and a third male forced their way into the bedroom. 2T. at 236-237; 3T. at 704-705. The trio hit Pound several times. 2T. at 238-239. Paskins testified that he told Pound to remove his pants, a pair of Rock Revival jeans belonging to Randolph, and give them back to her. 3T. at 761-762.
{¶8} Paskins described prior events of physical violence between Pound and Randolph in which he had intervened. During those altercations Paskins was always able to get Pound to stop by simply ordering him to do so. 3T. at 748-752.
{¶9} Pound could not remember many of the events that had occurred. Pound described waking up in Grant Hospital with a feeding tube, a breathing tube (tracheotomy ), and a piece of his skull removed. 2T. at 160. Pound continued to have violent seizures up until the time of trial that he had never experienced before his stay in Grant Hospital. Id. at 166. Pound had additional surgeries to replace the piece of his skull that had been removed in September 2021.
{¶10} Reed testified that he was serving time for Felonious Assault against Pound at the time of Paskins trial. 2T. at 206. Reed discussed that he was a drug addict with a criminal past and was to receive some consideration toward future judicial release in exchange for his cooperation with the State of Ohio. Id. at 209-213.
{¶11} Randolph testified she was granted immunity prior to her testimony. 2T. at 293-295.
{¶12} At the conclusion of all evidence and after hearing the arguments of the parties the trial court agreed to include an instruction on self-defense on the theory that Paskins acted in defense of Randolph. The Court further included an instruction as to Complicity.
{¶13} The jury found Paskins not guilty of Robbery, and guilty on the amended charge of Complicity to Felonious Assault. On September 24, 2021, following a hearing, the trial court sentenced Paskins to an indefinite sentence of 7 to 10 1/2 years in prison. Paskins’ sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to a prior conviction of Felonious Assault that occurred in the Fairfield County jail in Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas Case. No. 21CR118. See , State v. Paskins, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 2021 CA 00032, 2022-Ohio-3810, 199 N.E.3d 680.
{¶14} Paskins raises six Assignments of Error,
{¶15} "I. APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR COMPLICITY TO FELONIOUS ASSAULT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
{¶16} "II. APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR COMPLICITY TO FELONIOUS ASSAULT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
{¶17} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ITS DECISION TO OVERRULE APPELLANT'S MOTION TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL BASED ON JUROR MISCONDUCT, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶18} "IV. THE TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCE OF APPELLANT WAS CONTRARY TO LAW, BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS IN ITS SENTENCING ENTRY TO IMPOSE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES UNDER R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
{¶19} "V. THE TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCE OF APPELLANT WAS CONTRARY TO LAW BECAUSE IT SENTENCED APPELLANT TO A "MANDATORY" SENTENCE WHERE IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER R.C. 2929.13(F).
{¶20} "VI. R.C. 2967.171, ALSO KNOWN AS THE "REAGAN TOKES ACT," WHICH ALLOWS THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION TO UNILATERALLY EXTEND APPELLANT'S SENTENCE, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER BOTH THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTS. I, II, AND III, AND AMENDS. V, VI AND XIV, AND THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, ART. I, § 10, AND ART. IV, §§ I AND 3(B)(2).
{¶21} In his First Assignment of Error, Paskins argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for complicity to felonious assault. Specifically, Paskins contends that the state's evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Paskins was complicit in causing serious physical harm to Pound.
{¶22} The Sixth Amendment provides, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury...." This right, in conjunction with the Due Process Clause, requires that each of the material elements of a crime be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Alleyne v. United States , 570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2156, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013) ; Hurst v. Florida , 577 U.S. 92, 136 S.Ct. 616, 621, 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016). The test for the sufficiency of the evidence involves a question of law for resolution by the appellate court. State v. Walker , 150 Ohio St.3d 409, 2016-Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124, ¶30. "This naturally entails a review of the elements of the charged offense and a review of the state's evidence." State v. Richardson , 150 Ohio St.3d 554, 2016-Ohio-8448, 84 N.E.3d 993, ¶13.
{¶23} When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court does not ask whether the evidence should be believed. State v. Jenks , 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus, superseded by State constitutional amendment on other grounds as stated in State v. Smith , 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 102 at n.4, 684 N.E.2d 668 (1997) ; Walker , 150 Ohio St.3d 409, 2016-Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124 at ¶30. "The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the 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." Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus. State v. Pountney , 152 Ohio St.3d 474, 2018-Ohio-22, 97 N.E.3d 478, ¶19. Thus, "on review for evidentiary sufficiency we do not second-guess the jury's credibility determinations; rather, we ask whether, ‘if believed , [the evidence] would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " State v. Murphy , 91 Ohio St.3d 516, 543, 747 N.E.2d 765 (2001), quoting Jenks at paragraph two of the syllabus; Walker, 150 Ohio St.3d 409, 2016-Ohio-8295, 82 N.E.3d 1124 at ¶31. We will not "disturb a verdict on appeal on sufficiency grounds unless ‘reasonable minds could not reach the conclusion reached by the trier-of-fact.’ " State v. Ketterer , 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, ¶ 94, quoting State v. Dennis , 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 683 N.E.2d 1096 (1997) ; State v. Montgomery , 148 Ohio St.3d 347, 2016-Ohio-5487, 71 N.E.3d 180, ¶74.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bulger
... ... she was in imminent danger of bodily harm, and (3) he did not ... use more force than was reasonably necessary to defend ... against the imminent danger of bodily harm.'" ... Greer, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1082, 2023-Ohio-103 ... at ¶ 33, quoting State v. Paskins, 200 N.E.3d ... 684, 2022-Ohio-4024, ¶ 48 (5th Dist.) ... {¶ ... 21} Upon a thorough review of the record, we find no ... evidence was adduced in appellant's case supporting any ... reasonable inference that appellant acted in self-defense ... Instead, the facts recited ... ...
-
State v. Lawler
... ... situation giving rise to the affray; (2) he had reasonable ... grounds to believe or an honest belief he was in imminent ... danger of bodily harm; and (3) he did not use more force than ... was reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent ... danger of bodily harm. State v. Paskins, 5th Dist ... No. 2021 CA 00033, 2022-Ohio-4024, 200 N.E.3d 684, ¶ 48, ... citing State v. Staats, 5th Dist. Stark No ... 2019CA00181, 2021-Ohio-1325, 2021 WL 1502535, ¶28 ... {¶25} ... Pursuant to R.C. 2901.05, if there is evidence presented at ... trial which tends ... ...
-
State v. Brooks
... ... affray; (2) he/she had reasonable grounds to believe or an ... honest belief that he or she was in imminent danger of bodily ... harm, and (3) he/she did not use more force than ... was reasonably necessary to defend against the imminent ... danger of bodily harm." State v. Paskins, 200 ... N.E.3d 684, 2022-Ohio-4024, ¶ 48 (5th Dist.) ... {¶27} ... In State v. Messenger, 171 Ohio St.3d 227, ... 2022-Ohio-4562, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified the burden ... of proof where a defendant asserts a claim of self-defense ... under the version of the ... ...