[Cite as State v. Gaines, 2012-Ohio-2773.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 97497 

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

HAKIM GAINES

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-551049 

BEFORE: Rocco, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and E. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 21, 2012 

-i-
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Russell S. Bensing 

1350 Standard Building 

1370 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Jeffrey S. Schnatter 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Hakim Gaines appeals from his convictions after a jury 

found him guilty of carrying a concealed weapon (“CCW”), having a weapon while under 

disability (“HWUD”), and improper discharge of a firearm into a habitation (“improper 

discharge”). 

{¶2} Gaines presents one assignment of error that purports to assert that none of his 

convictions is supported by either sufficient evidence or by the manifest weight of the 

evidence; in actuality, however, he presents a challenge only to his conviction for 

improper discharge. Upon a review of the record, this court finds his claim lacks merit. 

Consequently, his convictions are affirmed. 

{¶3} Gaines’s convictions result from an incident that occurred at approximately 

10:00 p.m. on the night of June 1, 2011. According to the testimony of the state’s 

witnesses, the following circumstances surrounded the incident. 

{¶4} Cleveland police detective Dwayne Duke, of the Narcotics/Gang unit, sat in 

an undercover vehicle at the corner of Dunlap Avenue and E. 103rd Street, observing the 

activity occurring a block away on the front porch of the duplex located at 3659 E. 103rd, 

which was on the street’s corner with Aetna Avenue. Duke watched a group of nearly a 

dozen young people who seemed to be engaged in what he believed to be an illegal dice 

game. Duke reported his observation on his unit’s tactical radio channel in order to 

summon other members to the location. 
{¶5} While he was doing so, Duke looked in his rearview mirror to see a white car 

approaching. The car’s headlights were not illuminated. The car’s driver parked on 

Dunlap Avenue a few lengths behind Duke’s vehicle, then the driver and his passenger 

exited and proceeded to cross Dunlap. Duke noticed that the driver was a taller 

individual than his passenger and thought they were headed toward the porch of the house 

he was watching. 

{¶6} Shortly thereafter, however, as Duke saw the two men crossing the field 

“right in front of” him, they both stopped “for no more than a couple of seconds.” Both 

men turned to take a few steps back toward their car, then stopped again. At that point, 

the driver “pull[ed] out an object” that appeared to Duke to be a gun. The driver handed 

it to the other man, who was later identified as Gaines. 

{¶7} Upon seeing this, Duke informed his unit members what he was witnessing, 

then switched to a normal radio channel to tell the dispatcher to “[g]et any cars in the area 

to assist.” Duke remained on the radio, providing updates. Duke saw Gaines “turn 

towards the house, the gun up * * * , he didn’t aim it.” Gaines just pointed it in the 

direction of the duplex and fired twice. Duke saw the blasts and heard the reports. 

{¶8} The people on the duplex’s porch “scattered.” Duke saw the men return to 

the car behind him and flee the area by turning into a driveway and backing up to proceed 

westbound on Dunlap. By that time, one of Duke’s colleagues passed Duke’s location 

and took up the chase. 
{¶9} The driver eventually turned the white car onto E. 93rd Street. One of the 

detectives saw Gaines leaning out of the passenger side window before the car ultimately 

crashed into a pole in a store parking lot. The driver “bailed” and fled. 

{¶10} Before Gaines could escape, he was surrounded by police officers; Gaines 

appeared to be inebriated. Gaines was arrested. When Duke arrived at the scene of the 

crash, he identified Gaines as the man he saw fire the gun toward the duplex. One of the 

detectives found a gun laying in the grass in the area where Gaines had been seen leaning 

from the car window. 

{¶11} The following day, Duke returned to the duplex, where he spoke to Linda 

Banks, the resident of the upper portion of the duplex, and took photos of the area and of 

apparent damage to the side of the house. Although Banks had neither known of the 

incident nor previously noticed what appeared to be two holes in the siding of the duplex, 

Duke believed the holes were “fresh” ones that had been made by the bullets he saw fired. 

{¶12} Gaines subsequently was indicted on three counts, charged with CCW, 

HWUD, and improper discharge with firearm specifications. His case proceeded to a 

jury trial. After considering the evidence, the jury found Gaines guilty on each count. 

The trial court ultimately imposed a prison sentence on Gaines that totaled seven years. 

{¶13} Gaines challenges his convictions with one assignment of error. 

“I. The trial court erred by entering convictions which were unsupported by 

sufficient evidence, and against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
{¶14} Despite the phraseology of his assignment of error, Gaines claims the trial 

court improperly entered judgment on only his conviction for improper discharge with 

firearm specifications; he asserts that it was not supported by either sufficient evidence or 

the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶15} As a preliminary matter, this court notes that the sufficiency of the evidence 

produced by the state and the manifest weight of the evidence adduced at trial are legally 

distinct issues. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997). 

The test for sufficiency requires a determination of whether the state has met its burden of 

production at trial, while a manifest weight challenge questions whether the state has met 

its burden of persuasion. Id. at 390. 

{¶16} An appellate court’s function when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence 

to support a criminal conviction is to examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine 

whether such evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant’s 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thompkins. The relevant inquiry is whether, after 

viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could 

have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.; 

State v. Dennis, 79 Ohio St.3d 421, 430, 1997-Ohio-372, 683 N.E.2d 1096. 

{¶17} When a defendant asserts that his conviction is against the manifest weight 

of the evidence, the appellate court reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and all 

reasonable inferences from it, considers the credibility of the witnesses, and determines 

whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created 
such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and a new trial 

ordered. Thompkins. This discretionary power should be invoked only in 

extraordinary circumstances when the evidence presented weighs heavily in favor of the 

defendant. Id. This court must remain mindful, moreover, that the weight of the 

evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are matters primarily for the jury to assess. 

State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). 

{¶18} In order to be convicted of improper discharge, one must knowingly, and 

without privilege to do so, “[d]ischarge a firearm at or into an occupied structure that is a 

permanent or temporary habitation of any individual * * * .” R.C. 2923.161(A)(1). 

Gaines asserts the state’s evidence proved neither that he acted “knowingly,” nor that any 

bullets actually were fired. This court disagrees. 

{¶19} Duke observed Gaines take the gun from his companion and point the barrel 

in the direction of Banks’s house. Duke heard shots fired at the same time as he saw the 

gun twice blast out its contents. Banks testified she had lived in the second floor of the 

duplex for twenty-six years. Det. Robinson testified the defects he saw in the side of 

Banks’s house were bullet holes. When viewed in a light most favorable to the 

prosecution, this testimony constituted sufficient evidence to convince an average mind of 

Gaines’s guilt of improper discharge beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Brady, 8th 

Dist. No. 92910, 2010-Ohio-242; State v. Hayes, 8th Dist. No. 94697, 2011-Ohio-605. 

{¶20} Duke’s testimony concerning his observations found corroboration in the 

physical evidence. His commentary to his colleagues while the incident was occurring 
was introduced at trial, the side of Banks’s house that Gaines had been facing showed 

“fresh” holes that Duke and Det. Robinson both believed had been made by the shooting, 

and a gun was found in the area where, during the car chase, Gaines had been observed 

hanging out of the car window. In his testimony, the forensic analyst provided several 

reasons to explain why gunshot residue might not be present on Gaines’s hands two hours 

after the incident. 

{¶21} Under such circumstances, this court cannot find the jury lost its way in 

finding that Gaines committed the crime of improper discharge with firearm 

specifications. Id.; Brady; State v. Gilcreast, 9th Dist. No. 21533, 2003-Ohio-7177. 

Since the manifest weight of the evidence, therefore, also supports Gaines’s convictions, 

his assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶22} Gaines’s convictions are affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s convictions having 

been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court 

for execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 
______________________________________ 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR