State v. Bullock

Summary

The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District affirmed Darian Lee Bullock's convictions for kidnapping, abduction, strangulation, and domestic violence. The court rejected or disregarded challenges concerning alternate-juror substitution, a trial continuance, alleged prosecutorial misconduct involving Vietnam-related testimony, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the excessiveness of Bullock's sentence. Bullock's aggregate sentence was an indefinite prison term of 10 to 15 years.

Holdings

1. Under App.R. 12(A)(2), the court may disregard an assignment of error when the appellant fails to provide a reasoned argument applying the cited legal standards to the facts and record as required by App.R. 16(A)(7).
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by discharging two unavailable jurors and seating duly selected alternates, or by continuing the trial after a third juror became unable to serve.
3. Bullock failed to establish ineffective assistance because he did not demonstrate deficient performance or prejudice, and a motion for mistrial under the circumstances would have been futile.
4. The witness's spontaneous reference to Vietnam and the prosecutor's accurate references to that testimony did not constitute prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct or warrant a mistrial.
5. Bullock's sentence was not clearly and convincingly contrary to law because the trial court considered the required sentencing principles and factors, imposed postrelease control, and sentenced him within the statutory range.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court should review Bullock's plain-error challenge to the replacement of two unavailable jurors when his brief failed to apply the plain-error standard.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial after alternate jurors were seated and after a third juror's injury caused a continuance.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed plain error by replacing unavailable jurors with alternates and continuing the trial after another juror became incapacitated.
4. Whether testimony comparing the victim's fear to experiences in Vietnam and the prosecutor's references to that testimony constituted prosecutorial misconduct requiring a mistrial.
5. Whether Bullock established ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to seek a mistrial after the challenged testimony.
6. Whether Bullock's 10-to-15-year indefinite sentence was excessive or contrary to law.

Disposition

affirmed