Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 07-19-2020
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO v. RAYSHAUN PERKINS
Case Number: 108086
Judge: EILEEN A. GALLAGHER
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Jennifer M. Meyer, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
Call 918-582-6422 for free help finding a great criminal defense lawyer in Ohio.
Description:
 |
The following was adduced at trial and is not disputed on appeal. On
October 12, 2016, a robbery and shootout occurred at the Prodigy Cuts Barbershop
on Storer Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio. At the time, inside the barbershop, was the
shop owner, another barber and two customers, one of whom was a five-year-old
boy. Perkins’ codefendant at trial, Ross Sumlin, Jr., entered the barbershop
claiming that he was seeking service. Unbeknownst to the people inside, Sumlin was
actually in the shop to serve as a lookout. The shop owner told Sumlin to have a seat
in the waiting area. Sumlin sat down and began using his phone. Approximately two
minutes later, two men, identified at trial as Perkins and Deshon Pennyman,1
entered the barbershop with guns drawn. The owner testified that the assailants
ordered them to “empty [their] pockets and not to move.”
Both the owner and the barber were carrying concealed pistols and
drew them. Gunfire was exchanged. The five-year-old boy was hit by a bullet in his
foot and taken to the hospital for treatment. The shop owner was grazed by a bullet.
Pennyman was shot in the chest. Pennyman and Perkins escaped in a
vehicle driven by a friend named “Anthony,” leaving Sumlin behind. Pennyman
1 Pennyman, who was 16 at the time of the crime, entered an agreement with the
state to testify at trial in exchange for being treated as a juvenile for sentencing purposes.
testified that they were not concerned about leaving Sumlin behind because as far
as anybody in the barbershop knew, Sumlin “had nothing to do with the [shootout].”
Shortly thereafter, Sumlin fled the barbershop as well, though not before sustaining
a gunshot wound himself. Pennyman was dropped off at the hospital for treatment
where he was subsequently arrested and identified by the barbershop owner as one
of the assailants.
Following a joint trial, Perkins and Sumlin were found guilty of all
counts.
On appeal, Perkins raises two assignments of error:
I. Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of
the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution when his
attorney failed to:
1. File a motion for relief from prejudicial joinder and insist that
appellant be tried separate from his co-defendant.
2. Defense counsel failed to object to admissible hearsay thereby
allowing inadmissible hearsay to be heard by the jury when the
witness/speaker was not able to be cross-examined by defense
counsel.
II. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to order separate trials
for appellant and his co-defendant.
I. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In the first assignment of error, Perkins alleges that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel: (1) did not file a motion for
relief from prejudicial joinder and (2) did not object to inadmissible hearsay.
A criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674
(1984). To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
demonstrate: (1) deficient performance by counsel, i.e., that counsel’s performance
fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation, and (2) that counsel’s
errors prejudiced the defendant, i.e., a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s
errors, the result of the trial would have been different. Id. at 687-688, 694; State
v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraphs two and three of
the syllabus; see also State v. Ford, 158 Ohio St.3d 139, 2019-Ohio-4539, 140 N.E.3d
616, ¶ 391 (“Reversal of a conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel requires
that the defendant show, first, that counsel’s performance was deficient and second,
that the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant so as to deprive the
defendant of a fair trial.”). “Reasonable probability” is “probability sufficient to
undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland at 694.
Perkins does not explain how the joinder of himself and Sumlin for trial
prejudiced him. Rather, he merely states, and without offering any support, that
trial counsel failed to address “apparent” issues of prejudicial joinder. Moreover, he
concludes, and with no explanation, that counsel failing to seek severance
constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Perkins articulates no basis by which
this court can conclude that counsel’s performance here was deficient or that it
prejudiced him. We will not infer a basis for him.
Perkins also claims that trial counsel was ineffective because he did
not object to allegedly inadmissible hearsay testimony. The testimony at issue
occurred during direct examination of one of the investigating detectives in the
context of how Perkins came to be included in a photo array to be shown to a victim.
The alleged inadmissible hearsay occurred during the following exchange:
[Prosecutor]: So, fair to say that you did receive the name of
Rayshaun Perkins prior to speaking with Deshon
Pennyman?
[Detective]: Yes.
[Prosecutor]: Do you recall how you learned that name?
[Detective]: If I’m not mistaken, it was from his mother.
Tr. 632.
Perkins argues that the detective’s statement about what the mother
said was inadmissible hearsay. That is incorrect.
Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted.” Evid.R. 801(C). In this case, the detective was testifying as to the course
of the investigation and explaining the reason why Perkins was included in a photo
array.
“Ohio courts have long held that out-of-court statements are
admissible to explain the actions of a police officer during an investigation and are
not hearsay.” State v. Johnson, 2018-Ohio-1389, 110 N.E.3d 800, ¶ 44 (8th Dist.),
citing State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, 880 N.E.2d 31; see also
State v. Carter, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104653, 2017-Ohio-5573, ¶ 47, quoting State
v. Blevins, 36 Ohio App.3d 147, 149, 521 N.E.2d 1105 (10th Dist. 1987) (“‘[W]here
statements are offered to explain an officer’s conduct while investigating a crime,
such statements are not hearsay.’”). As such, the detective’s statement was not
hearsay. Counsel, thus, had no basis upon which to object to the statement as
inadmissible hearsay and, accordingly, was not deficient for failing to do so.
Moreover, Perkins does not claim any prejudice resulted from this testimony.
We overrule the first assignment of error.
II. Prejudicial Joinder
In the second assignment of error, Perkins argues that the trial court
abused its discretion because it did not order separate trials for Perkins and Sumlin.
In relevant part, Crim.R. 8(B) provides that “[t]wo or more defendants
may be charged in the same indictment * * * if they are alleged to have participated
in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions
constituting an offense or offenses, or in the same course of criminal conduct.”
Generally, the law and public policy favor joinder of defendants. State v. Hall, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90365, 2009-Ohio-461, ¶ 51. However, “[i]f it appears that a
defendant * * * is prejudiced by a joinder * * * of defendants in an indictment * * *
or by such joinder for trial together of indictments * * *, the court shall * * * grant a
severance of defendants, or provide such other relief as justice requires.” Crim.R.
14; see also State v. Brinkley, 105 Ohio St.3d 231, 2005-Ohio-1507, 824 N.E.2d 959,
¶ 29 (defendant bears burden of proving prejudice).
Perkins did not object to the joinder of defendants and he did not ask
the trial court for severance.2 As such, our review is for plain error, not abuse of
discretion. State v. Gordon, 152 Ohio St.3d 528, 2018-Ohio-259, 98 N.E.3d 251,
¶ 22.
The Supreme Court has instructed courts to notice plain error “‘with
the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest
miscarriage of justice.’” Id. at ¶ 23, quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372
N.E.2d 804 (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. In order to show plain error, a
defendant must evidence an error that “constitutes an obvious defect in the trial
proceedings and demonstrate that the error affected the outcome of the trial.” Id.,
citing State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22.
Perkins claims that the joinder of defendants prejudiced him for
several reasons. We find none to be meritorious.
For example, Perkins claims that Sumlin’s counsel made statements
“to implicate Appellant in the indicted offenses” and provides citation to two such
instances that occurred during closing arguments.
The first instance appears to be merely a misstatement that counsel
corrected himself:
2 We note that while represented by counsel, Perkins filed a pro se “motion to
disqualify counsel,” claiming amongst other things counsel failed to file a “motion to joinder
[sic]” and a “motion to bifurcate.” But see State v. Mongo, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100926,
2015-Ohio-1139, ¶ 14, citing State v. Washington, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 96565 and
96568, 2012-Ohio-1531, ¶ 11 (“[W]hen counsel represents a criminal defendant, a trial court
may not entertain a defendant’s pro se motion.”). Nevertheless, review of the record reflects
that Perkins’ motion to disqualify counsel was withdrawn.
Deshon says, initially, that Ross called Worm, Mr. Perkins, right?
That’s what he says in his initial interview. Or no, I’m sorry. That’s
incorrect. That’s incorrect. He says in his initial interview that Ross
called Anthony.
Tr. 732. This is not plain error.
The second instance is similarly benign:
[Sumlin’s Counsel:] Deshon testified that his mother begged him to tell
because he didn’t tell right away, right? He waited about four months.
Then mom said, hey, you know what? Why don’t you say Ross
[Sumlin], Mr. Perkins --
[Prosecutor]: Objection.
[The Court]: Overruled.
[Sumlin’s Counsel:] Alright. Let’s talk a little bit about Detective Duke
* * *.
Tr. 737.
We find the other purported instances of prejudice that Perkins claims
from the joinder to be similarly unavailing. Moreover, Perkins fails to provide any
indication as to where in the record these instances are evidenced.
Nevertheless, Perkins claims his “presence at the trial table” with
Sumlin, “who claimed zero involvement in the crimes” caused the jury to assume
that Perkins was himself guilty. Perkins also claims that Sumlin’s counsel “pointed
his finger at Appellant.” Even if we were to assume that this all occurred, and in
spite of Perkins failure to demonstrate any of it on the record, none of it is plain
error. Further, we note that as previously mentioned Sumlin was found guilty
alongside Perkins.
Perkins also claims, though without any support from the record, that
he and Sumlin presented conflicting defenses. It is true that antagonistic defenses
may provide a basis for severing codefendants. See, e.g., State v. Klinkner, 10th Dist.
Franklin Nos. 13AP-469, 13AP-521 and 13AP-595, 2014-Ohio-2022, ¶ 19 (“Defenses
are mutually antagonistic where each defendant attempts to exculpate himself and
inculpate his co-defendants.”). Review of the record here reflects that neither
Perkins nor Sumlin presented any defense, let alone an antagonistic defense.
We overrule the second assignment of error.
Outcome: Judgment affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: