Summary
The First District Court of Appeals of Ohio reviewed Jaishon Watts's convictions for aggravated robbery and firearm specifications following a bench trial. The court upheld the conviction after rejecting his sufficiency and manifest-weight challenges, but reversed the sentences imposed on both firearm specifications because they arose from the same felony. The court also vacated a no-contact order because the trial court imposed a prison term rather than community control, and remanded for resentencing on one firearm specification.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support Watts's aggravated-robbery conviction as an aider and abettor.
- Whether the aggravated-robbery conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court could impose both one-year and three-year firearm-specification sentences when both specifications were attached to the same underlying felony.
- Whether the trial court could impose a stay-away or no-contact order as part of a sentence that included a prison term.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to support Watts's aggravated-robbery conviction as an aider and abettor because a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly assisted the principals and shared their criminal intent.
- The aggravated-robbery conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The trial court was statutorily precluded from imposing sentences for both the one-year and three-year firearm specifications attached to the same underlying felony.
- When the trial court imposes a prison term for the offense, it may not also impose a stay-away or no-contact order as a community-control sanction.
Key quotations
“To support a conviction for complicity by aiding and abetting, the evidence must show that “the defendant supported, assisted, encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited the principal in the commission of the crime, and that the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal.”” (¶ 13)
“A trial court is authorized to impose either a prison or jail term, or community control for a particular offense.” (¶ 23)
Factual background
Watts drove a black Chevrolet Impala carrying two men, one of whom openly carried a rifle, from a gas station and thereafter followed the victim's vehicle to the victim's home. The two passengers assaulted the victim with a gun, took the victim's wife's phone, and fled in Watts's car. Surveillance evidence, the matching vehicle description, and Watts's admission that he was driving supported the state's complicity theory, although Watts denied knowing about the robbery and the victim could not identify him as one of the assailants.
Procedural history
Watts was indicted for robbery and aggravated robbery, with two firearm specifications attached to each count. After a bench trial, the trial court found him guilty of both counts and specifications, merged the robbery count into the aggravated-robbery count, imposed sentences on both the one-year and three-year specifications, and imposed an aggregate six-year prison term along with a stay-away order. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, reversed the sentences imposed on both firearm specifications, vacated the stay-away order, and remanded for resentencing on one firearm specification.
Remand instructions
Remand to the trial court for resentencing on one of the firearm specifications. The no-contact or stay-away order is vacated; the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.