State v. Mayes

Summary

The Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals reviewed Tasani Mayes’s convictions for felonious assault and improperly discharging a firearm, along with the State’s cross-appeal concerning sentencing-entry errors. The court held that Mayes waived his hearsay challenge, affirmed the convictions against sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges, and remanded for correction of the Count 2 statutory citation and Count 3 felony-degree designation. The court also remanded for resentencing on Count 3 because the trial court failed to impose the required indefinite maximum prison term.

Holdings

1. A defendant who affirmatively states that he has no objection to the admission of evidence waives any appellate challenge to that admission, including a claim of plain error.
2. Evidence that a defendant fired eight shots toward a person and residential homes in a residential neighborhood during the afternoon, while children were outside, is sufficient to establish that the defendant acted knowingly for purposes of felonious assault.
3. The jury did not clearly lose its way in finding that Mayes knowingly caused or attempted to cause physical harm and was the shooter; the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
4. The sentencing entry must be corrected to state that Count 2 involved a violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D)(1)(a), rather than R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (D)(1)(a).
5. On remand, the trial court must include the degree of the offense for Count 3 in the sentencing entry.
6. Because Count 3 was a qualifying first- or second-degree felony subject to indefinite sentencing, the trial court was required to impose an indefinite maximum prison term; failure to do so rendered the sentence contrary to law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Mayes waived his challenge to the admission of C.W.'s out-of-court identification statements by affirmatively stating that he had no objection when the evidence was admitted.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the knowingly element of Mayes's felonious-assault convictions.
3. Whether the felonious-assault convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence as to the knowingly and identity elements.
4. Whether the sentencing entry contained the correct statutory subsection for Count 2.
5. Whether the sentencing entry stated the felony degree for Count 3.
6. Whether the trial court was required to impose an indefinite maximum prison term for Count 3.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded