State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 16 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 28648 |
| Citation | 2021 Ohio 1340 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee v. TRENTON M. WILLIAMS Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
OPINIONMATHIAS H. HECK, JR. by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No. 0069384, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
DAVID R. MILES, Atty. Reg. No. 0013841, 1160 Dayton-Yellow Springs Road, Fairborn, Ohio 45324 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
{¶ 1} Trenton M. Williams was convicted after a jury trial in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas of aggravated murder (while committing aggravated robbery) with a firearm specification, aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, aggravated burglary, and two counts of having weapons while under disability. Prior to trial, the court denied Williams's motion to suppress statements that he made to the police. After the trial but prior to sentencing, Williams challenged the presumption that he was required to register with the violent offender database. The court found that Williams was the principal offender and, at sentencing, imposed an aggregate sentence of 31 years to life in prison, ordered Williams to pay restitution and court costs, and advised him of his duty to register with the violent offender database upon his release from prison.
{¶ 2} Williams appeals from his conviction, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to the police, that his convictions (other than for having weapons while under disability) were based on insufficient evidence and against the manifest weight of the evidence, that the court erred in imposing a sentence of life in prison with parole eligibility after 25 years for the aggravated murder, and that the court erred in determining that he was a principal offender for purposes of the violent offender database. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment will be affirmed.
{¶ 3} At approximately 10:00 p.m. on November 28, 2017, Williams and three other individuals, including Trashune Young, went to the Dayton residence of Taelor Taylor to rob him. Taylor was fatally shot in the chest during the robbery. During the police investigation, detectives obtained infrared surveillance videos from Taylor's home and retrieved information from Taylor's cell phones. Information from one of Taylor's cell phones led detectives to Williams.
{¶ 4} On the morning of November 30, two days after the homicide, detectives located and arrested Williams. A patrol officer transported him to the Safety Building, the downtown Dayton police station. Prior to any questioning, Williams was informed of his Miranda rights, but he refused to sign the waiver of rights form. Nevertheless, Williams agreed to talk with the detectives.
{¶ 5} The morning interview on November 30 began in an interview room equipped with an audio-visual recording device. After approximately an hour, Williams suggested that he would be willing to identify an individual involved in the crime, but not in a room with recording capabilities. Although the detectives had previously informed Williams that they were required by law to record the interview, they moved him to a conference room without recording equipment and allowed him to smoke there. During the hour-long conversation in the conference room, one of the detectives recorded Williams's statements using his cell phone without Williams's knowledge, despite telling Williams that conversations in that room were not recorded. Williams provided the name of the individual who had used his phone and a potential alibi.
{¶ 6} Later that day, after the detectives investigated his alleged alibi, the detectives spoke with Williams for approximately 75 minutes. Prior to asking questions, the detectives again informed Williams of his Miranda rights and Williams again refused to sign the waiver of rights form. Williams agreed to talk, however, and made incriminating statements. After the second interview concluded, Williams was booked into jail.
{¶ 7} On December 3, 2017, Williams's girlfriend contacted the police and informed them that Williams wanted to talk further about the incident. A different detective retrieved Williams from the jail and again informed Williams of his Miranda rights. Williams again refused to sign a waiver form, but he was willing to speak. The interview lasted approximately 45 minutes, during which Williams provided additional information about the incident.
{¶ 8} On December 7, 2017, Williams was charged by complaint with two counts of aggravated murder, four counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of felonious assault, and six counts of having weapons while under disability. Each of the charges, except those of having weapons while under disability, included a three-year firearm specification. Williams was indicted on those charges in June 2018.
{¶ 9} Williams subsequently moved to suppress the evidence against him. He argued that his warrantless arrest on November 30 had been unconstitutional and that the statements he made to the police had been the product of that unlawful arrest. He further argued that, regardless of the legality of his arrest, his statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). After the motion was filed, the State provided DVDs of Williams's video-recorded interviews with the police - the first portion of the November 30 morning interview, the November 30 afternoon interview, and the December 3 interview - and an audio-recording of the portion of the November 30 interview that occurred in the conference room. After receiving that discovery, Williams filed an additional motion to suppress, arguing that the audio-recorded interview on November 30 was recorded surreptitiously which, along with the detectives' other coercive conduct, rendered his statements involuntary.
{¶ 10} The trial court conducted a hearing on the motions to suppress on September 28 and October 4, 2018. On March 6, 2019, the trial court issued a lengthy decision, concluding that the law enforcement officers had had probable cause to arrest Williams, that Williams validly had waived his Miranda rights on November 30 and December 3, that his statements to the police had not been the result of coercive police conduct, and that his constitutional rights had not been violated. The trial court overruled the motions to suppress in their entirety.
{¶ 11} The matter proceeded to a jury trial on September 30, 2019. The State presented 11 witnesses and numerous exhibits, including surveillance video from Taylor's home. Williams testified on his own behalf and presented two additional witnesses. After deliberating, the jury found Williams guilty of each indicted offense and specification.
{¶ 12} Prior to sentencing, Williams filed a motion opposing his classification as a violent offender, and he requested a hearing to rebut the presumption that he must enroll in the violent offender database. The trial court conducted a hearing on November 18, 2019, and concluded that Williams had failed to rebut the presumption that he was a violent offender. The court reasoned that the surveillance video from the offense reflected that Williams, not Young, was armed at Taylor's house and supported a conclusion that Williams shot Taylor.
{¶ 13} At sentencing, the trial court merged the aggravated murder, murder, and felonious assault counts into a single aggravated murder count (Count 1), merged the two aggravated robbery counts into a single count (Count 8), and merged the two aggravated burglary counts into a single count (Count 10). The six charges of having weapons under disability were based on two different weapons and three different prior offenses, and those charges were merged into two counts, one for each weapon (Counts 13 and 17). Additionally, the court merged the three-year firearm specifications into the specifications for Counts 1 and 8.
{¶ 14} The court sentenced Williams to a mandatory term of life in prison with parole eligibility after 25 years for the aggravated murder, 11 years for the aggravated robbery, 11 years for the aggravated burglary, and 36 months for each count of having weapons while under disability, to be served concurrently. The court further imposed three years each for the two firearm specifications, to be served prior and consecutively to the other concurrent sentences. Williams's aggregate sentence was 31 years to life in prison. The court also ordered Williams to pay restitution and court costs.
{¶ 15} Williams appeals, raising five assignments of error.
{¶ 16} In his first assignment of error, Williams claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Williams does not, however, challenge the trial court's conclusions regarding the validity of his arrest or the voluntariness of his statements to detectives on December 3, 2017.
{¶ 17} In ruling on a motion to suppress, the trial court "assumes the role of the trier of fact, and, as such, is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and evaluate the credibility of the witnesses." State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586, 592, 639 N.E.2d 498 (2d Dist.1994); State v. Knisley, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22897, 2010-Ohio-116, ¶ 30. Accordingly, when we review suppression decisions, we must accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence. Retherford at 592. "Accepting those facts as true, we must independently determine as a matter of law, without deference to the trial court's conclusion, whether they meet the...
To continue reading
Request your trial