[Cite as State v. Freeze, 2012-Ohio-5840.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BUTLER COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 CASE NO. CA2011-11-209 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 O P I N I O N 

 : 12/10/2012 

 - vs - 

 : 

BRYAN S. FREEZE, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 

Case No. CR2011-05-0708 

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government 

Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee 

Charles Conliff, 5145 Pleasant Avenue, Suite 18, P.O. Box 18424, Fairfield, Ohio 45018-

0424, for defendant-appellant 

 

 S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Bryan S. Freeze, appeals his conviction in the Butler 

County Court of Common Pleas for seven counts of robbery. For the reasons stated below, 

we affirm. 

{¶ 2} From October 2010 until early January 2011, a string of robberies were 

committed in the Middletown and West Chester area. The robberies occurred at several 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 2 - 

small businesses, including a local BP Drive-Thru, Waffle House, Great Clips, Dillman's 

Grocery, Jimmy John's, and Advanced Auto-Parts. Appellant and Wesley Moore became 

suspects in these robberies. 

{¶ 3} Appellant was indicted for seven robberies, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) 

and seven repeat violent offender specifications under R.C. 2941.149. Appellant pled not 

guilty to the charges, and the matters proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, several witnesses, 

including Moore, testified regarding the seven robberies. 

{¶ 4} At trial, Moore testified that he and appellant worked together to rob several 

businesses in the Butler County area. Moore explained that he met appellant in prison and 

they became cell-mates in 2003. In 2009 Moore was released from prison and returned to 

his hometown of Columbus, Ohio. Moore maintained contact with appellant who was still in 

prison. After appellant was released from prison, appellant would pick up Moore from 

Columbus and the two would return to appellant's apartment in Middletown. During these 

visits, appellant and Moore robbed several businesses. Moore testified that appellant would 

always choose the locations because he was familiar with the area. 

BP Drive-Thru

{¶ 5} The first of the seven indicted robberies was the robbery of the BP Drive-Thru. 

On October 4, 2010, and again on November 12, 2010, the BP Drive-Thru in Middletown was 

robbed. Moore stated that appellant chose the Drive-Thru as a target to rob and drove 

through the Drive-Thru prior to the robbery to scope it out. On the evenings of October 4 and 

November 12, appellant drove Moore to a residential street close to the Drive-Thru and 

waited for Moore to return from the robbery. Moore stated that he used a fake plastic rifle 

made to look like a sawed-off shotgun with duct tape on the handle and that he did not wear 

a mask. Moore then walked into the Drive-Thru with the gun, obtained the money, returned 

to appellant and the getaway car, and spilt the money with appellant. 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 3 - 

{¶ 6} Middletown Detective Richard Bush also testified regarding the BP Drive-Thru 

robberies. He stated that he was investigating a series of robberies that had occurred in 

Middletown and began scrutinizing the robberies at the BP Drive-Thru because they fit the 

same modus operandi as the other robberies. The BP Drive-Thru had a digital recording 

system and Bush was able to obtain surveillance video from October 4, 2010, and November 

12, 2010, which captured the two robberies. This video was introduced at trial and showed a 

man wearing a leather jacket entering the Drive-Thru with a shot gun. Both Bush and Moore 

identified the robber in the video as Moore. 

Waffle House

{¶ 7} The next robbery to occur was at the Waffle House on October 5, 2010. The 

Waffle House is located in West Chester and was robbed between 12:30 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. 

A Waffle House manager and customer who were present during the robbery testified 

regarding the incident. Both the manager and customer stated that two men, one wearing a 

bandana and one unmasked, entered the restaurant in the early morning hours of October 5, 

2010. The manager testified that the two men ordered some of the employees and the 

customers into the men's restrooms. The men then ordered the manager to open the cash 

registers and the safes. The masked man had a gun and kept pushing the manager with the 

gun. The masked man also hit the manager in the head with the gun. The manager was 

unable to open the safe but gave the men the money inside the cash registers. 

{¶ 8} Both the manager and the customer described the bandana one of the men 

was wearing as checkered; the manager stated it had a red and blue pattern while the 

customer described it as red and black. The manager identified appellant as the robber with 

the bandana. The manager stated that he looked straight into the masked man's eyes when 

the man was pointing a gun at him and could identify the man as appellant. The manager 

described the gun as a "shotgun" and believed it to be real. The customer also commented 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 4 - 

that the masked man had a single-action shotgun, which "at first didn't seem real." The 

customer stated that the masked man had peppered gray hair but was unable to identify the 

masked man at trial. 

{¶ 9} Moore also admitted to robbing the Waffle House with appellant. He stated that 

appellant chose the Waffle House as a target. During the robbery, Moore, unmasked, 

entered the restaurant first with appellant following closely behind. Moore stated that he 

always committed the robberies without a mask so he could get into the business without 

causing alarm. Moore reasoned that he did not need to wear a mask because he was not 

from the area, so people wouldn't recognize him. Appellant took a shirt out of the backseat 

and tied it around his face. Appellant also carried a fake air compressor pistol that was black 

into the restaurant. After the men entered the business, Moore took the money out of the 

register and the two fled the scene. 

Great Clips

{¶ 10} Great Clips, located in West Chester, was the next business to be robbed on 

October 14, 2010. Two employees, working at the time the robbery occurred, testified 

regarding the incident. An unmasked man entered the business around 8:40 p.m. and asked 

if he could get a haircut. The man then revealed a gun and told the employee to give him the 

money. One employee described the gun as silver with a long handle and it appeared to be 

real. Both employees were unable to identify appellant as the man who robbed them. 

{¶ 11} Moore testified regarding the incident and stated that he went into the business 

alone, unmasked to rob it. Appellant again picked the business as a target to rob. Appellant 

was the getaway driver and parked behind the building so that Moore could go out the back 

door of Great Clips and run straight into the car. Moore used a fake air compressor pistol 

that was black and looked like it could be a 9 mm handgun. Moore stated that he and 

appellant spilt the money between them. 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 5 - 

Dillman's Grocery

{¶ 12} A manager and an employee from Dillman's Grocery testified at trial that their 

store was robbed on December 19, 2010. Dillman's Grocery is located in Middletown. The 

manager of the grocery store stated that at 7:45 p.m. two men came into the business with 

guns and took several thousand dollars. One of the men was masked and the other man did 

not wear a mask. The unmasked man emptied the manager's register. The employee 

testified that the masked man told her to empty the cash register and threatened to shoot the 

employee in the stomach when she could not get it open. Eventually, the employee opened 

the register and the masked man took its contents. Additionally, the masked man ordered 

the manager to empty the store's safe. The state introduced two exhibits at trial, a black ski 

mask and a fake air compressor pistol. Police found the mask and the air compressor pistol 

during a search of appellant's vehicle. Both witnesses identified these exhibits as similar to 

the gun and mask that were used in the robbery. 

{¶ 13} Moore also recalled robbing a grocery store, with the name of "Dollman's or 

something like that." Appellant again chose this location and both men went into the store. 

Moore stated that he did not wear a mask and appellant wore a black ski mask. The men 

carried "little pellet pistols" similar to the one that was identified by the Dillman employees. 

Moore testified that when they went in, three female employees were working. They emptied 

the cash registers and the safe. During the robbery, Moore stated that appellant "told one 

lady to stay still and had words with her" and they pointed the guns at the clerks "the whole 

time pretty much." The two men divided the money between them. 

Jimmy John's

{¶ 14} After the Dillman's Grocery robbery, a West Chester Jimmy John's restaurant 

was robbed on January 8, 2011. Two Jimmy John's employees testified regarding the 

robbery. One employee explained that on January 8, around 9 p.m., he and another 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 6 - 

employee were cleaning up the store. Suddenly, two men, one masked and one unmasked, 

entered the store and ordered the employees to turn over the money. The employees did not 

have a key to the register, so they took the men to the back of the store where the manager 

opened the safe. After the men emptied the contents of the safe, they ordered the 

employees to "get on the ground and don't move." Initially, the men had trouble exiting the 

restaurant and returned to ask the employees where the back door was located. The men 

then left. 

{¶ 15} One of the employees described the unmasked man as carrying a gun and 

stated that this man was not appellant. The other robber was wearing a black mask, similar 

to the state's exhibit. The masked man was carrying a gun and the employee described it as 

a small black pistol, semi-automatic. The employee was unable to identify the masked man 

as appellant because he was unable to see his face. The second employee was also unable 

to identify the masked man as appellant. 

{¶ 16} A West Chester Police Officer testified regarding his investigation of the Jimmy 

John's robbery. The officer was dispatched to Jimmy John's shortly after the robbery 

occurred. The officer found no physical evidence at the scene. However, the officer 

reviewed the Jimmy John's security video and, based on his observations, confirmed that it 

appeared to be a robbery. The officer did not copy the video but instead made several stills 

which were introduced at trial. The officer was unable to identify appellant as a suspect in 

the robbery. 

{¶ 17} Finally, Moore testified regarding the Jimmy John's robbery. He stated that 

both he and appellant went into the restaurant. Appellant was wearing a black ski mask 

while he was unmasked and both men had fake guns, similar to the ones in the state's 

exhibit. Moore identified appellant from one of the still photographs taken from the security 

video. Moore stated that he went towards the back and emptied the safe. The men then 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 7 - 

exited the building through the back and drove away in appellant's car. They spilt the money 

between them. 

Advanced Auto Parts

{¶ 18} The last indicted robbery occurred on January 16, 2011, at Advanced Auto 

Parts in Middletown. Two employees were working when a white male came through the 

store's front door at approximately 10:20 a.m. One of the employees was in the front part of 

the store and the other was in the back room. The white male pulled a gun, and told the 

employee to empty the registers. A second man wearing a black ski mask came in a few 

seconds after the first man. After the second man entered the store, the employee in the 

back room came out and found that all the registers were open. The masked man pointed a 

gun to the employee's head and the employee testified that he heard a "click-click" which 

sounded like a gun cock. The unmasked robber ordered the employees to open the safe. 

An employee responded that he could not open the safe as it was on a time delay. The 

robbers then left the store. 

{¶ 19} Both employees described the guns used by the men as black. One testified 

that the gun was a "smooth cylinder type on the top, real narrowish, possibly nine millimeter." 

The second employee described the gun as a black semi-automatic. Both employees 

identified the guns used in the robbery as similar in color, size, and style to the gun in the 

state's exhibit. Both employees described the mask the second man was wearing as a black 

ski mask and stated that the state's exhibit of a ski mask matched the robber's mask. The 

employees were not able to identify appellant as the masked man. 

{¶ 20} A Middletown detective testified that he recovered a surveillance video from a 

business that is located southeast from Advanced Auto Parts. The two businesses share an 

alleyway. The video contained a time and date stamp. In the video, on January 16, 2011, 

around 10:10 a.m., an orange-colored Pontiac Sunfire is seen heading towards Advanced 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 8 - 

Auto Parts and a few minutes later, the same car heads eastbound away from Advanced 

Auto Parts. The car then appears 15 minutes later and it turns off into an alley behind 

Advanced Auto Parts and parks behind a dumpster out of view of the auto parts store. The 

car is then seen again around 10:32 a.m. Appellant owns an orange Pontiac Sunfire. 

{¶ 21} Lastly, Moore testified regarding the robbery of the auto parts store. Moore, 

who is a white male, stated that the Advanced Auto Parts robbery was the first robbery the 

pair committed in the daylight. He and appellant circled around the store for a while trying to 

decide on a plan. The men then parked along the side of the store and Moore entered the 

building first with appellant following close behind. Moore did not cover his face while 

appellant wore a black ski mask. Moore explained that he told one of the employees to 

empty the registers and appellant held a gun to the other employee's head. Moore and 

appellant were unable to remove the money in the safe as it was on a time delay. Moore 

identified the black ski mask and guns offered by the state as the guns and mask they used 

during the robbery. Moore acknowledged that the guns used in the robbery were fake and 

would be unable to make a "gun-cocking" sound. Additionally, Moore stated that they always 

used appellant's orange Pontiac Sunfire for the robberies and Moore identified the vehicle in 

the surveillance video. The men spilt the money between them. 

Batteries Plus and Hotel Robberies

{¶ 22} Moore also testified about other unindicted robberies. Moore and appellant 

committed two or three other robberies at local area hotels. Moore stated that he went into 

the hotels alone and robbed them. Appellant acted as the lookout man in the vehicle and 

drove the pair away when Moore finished the robbery. The pair then spilt the money. 

{¶ 23} Another unindicted robbery, the robbery of a Batteries Plus store in Liberty 

Township, led to the arrest of appellant and Moore. On January 18, 2011, Moore and 

appellant were driving around looking for a location to rob. The men decided to rob Batteries 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 9 - 

Plus because of its location close to a highway. Moore testified that he and appellant walked 

inside the store and ordered the employees to empty their cash registers. Appellant was 

wearing a black ski mask and used a fake gun similar to those used in the other robberies. 

During the robbery, Moore noticed a person sitting in an SUV outside the store. The men 

quickly left the store and drove away in appellant's orange Pontiac Sunfire. 

{¶ 24} The Butler County Sheriff's Office was notified of the robbery and responded to 

the scene. During the investigation of the robbery, a witness was identified who had 

recorded the license plate number of the robber's vehicle. The license plate number led the 

police to appellant's apartment. When appellant returned to his apartment, the police were 

waiting for him. Appellant was arrested and he identified Moore as assisting him in the 

Batteries Plus robbery. Police obtained a search warrant for appellant's vehicle and found an 

empty money bag which contained a deposit receipt from Batteries Plus. Additionally, police 

found a fake firearm in the driver's side rear seat area and a black ski mask. Moore was 

convicted of this robbery. 

{¶ 25} After the presentation of all the witnesses, a unanimous jury found appellant 

guilty of seven counts of robbery. The trial court then found appellant guilty of seven repeat 

violent offender specifications. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 16 

years. 

{¶ 26} Appellant now appeals, raising seven assignments of error. 

{¶ 27} Assignment of Error No. 1: 

{¶ 28} APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS VIOLATED BY THE 

MISJOINDER OF UNRELATED CRIMINAL OFFENSES. 

{¶ 29} Appellant argues that the trial court committed plain error by joining the seven 

counts of robbery into one trial. 

{¶ 30} Ordinarily, we review a trial court's decision regarding joinder under an abuse of 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 10 - 

discretion standard. State v. Moshos, 12th Dist. No. CA2009-06-008, 2010-Ohio-735. 

However, in this case we will review for plain error as appellant failed to file a motion to sever 

the cases. State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ 108; Crim.R. 52(B). An 

alleged error is plain error only if the error is "obvious" and "but for the error, the outcome of 

the trial clearly would have been otherwise." Lang at ¶ 108. Notice of plain error "is to be 

taken with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances, and only to prevent a 

manifest miscarriage of justice." Id. 

{¶ 31} It is well-established that "[t]he law favors joining multiple offenses in a single 

trial under Crim.R. 8(A) if the offenses charged 'are of the same or similar character.'" State 

v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160, 163 (1990), quoting State v. Torres, 66 Ohio St.2d 340 (1981). 

"Joinder is liberally permitted to conserve judicial resources, reduce the chance of 

incongruous results in successive trials, and diminish inconvenience to the witnesses." State 

v. Schaim, 65 Ohio St.3d 51, 58 (1992). However, a defendant may move to sever offenses 

that have otherwise been properly joined where it appears that joinder would be prejudicial. 

Id.; Crim.R. 14. The defendant bears the burden of proving prejudicial joinder. State v. 

Ashcraft, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-12-305, 2009-Ohio-5281, ¶ 15. 

{¶ 32} The state may rebut a defendant's claim of prejudice by utilizing one of two 

methods. Id. at ¶ 16. The "other acts" test allows the state to rebut the defendant's claim of 

prejudice by demonstrating that it could have introduced evidence of the joined offenses at 

separate trials pursuant to the "other acts" provision found in Evid.R. 404(B). State v. Coley, 

93 Ohio St.3d 253, 259 (2001). "If the evidence of other crimes would be admissible at 

separate trials, any prejudice that might result from the jury's hearing the evidence of the 

other crime in a joint trial would be no different from that possible in separate trials, and a 

court need not inquire further." State v. Garrett, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-08-075, 2009-Ohio5442, ¶ 42. On the other hand, the state may separately negate a claim of prejudice by 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 11 - 

satisfying the less stringent "joinder test," which requires the state to merely demonstrate 

"that evidence of each crime joined at trial is simple and direct." Coley at 260. 

{¶ 33} Evid.R. 404(B) provides that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not 

admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." 

However, "other acts" evidence is admissible for other purposes, such as to establish the 

identity of a perpetrator. State v. Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 277, 282-283 (1988). Other-acts 

evidence is construed against admissibility because of the substantial danger that the jury will 

convict the defendant solely because it assumed that the defendant has a propensity to 

commit crimes and not based on whether the defendant committed the crime charged in the 

indictment. State v. Lowe, 69 Ohio St.3d 527, 530 (1994). The admission of other acts 

evidence must also meet the prerequisites of Evid.R. 403(A), which requires the exclusion of 

relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair 

prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. State v. Vore, 12th Dist. No. 

CA2011-08-093, 2012-Ohio-2431. 

{¶ 34} One of the purposes in which other acts evidence is admissible, is to establish 

the identity of the perpetrator. Lowe at 531. Other acts evidence is admissible where the 

identity of a perpetrator is established by showing he has committed similar crimes and that a 

distinct, identifiable scheme, plan, or system was used in the commission of the charged 

offense. Id. "To be admissible to prove identity through a certain modus operandi, other-acts 

evidence must be related to and share common features with the crime in question." Id. at 

paragraph one of the syllabus. 

{¶ 35} In the present case, the seven robberies appellant was charged with shared 

many common features. All of the seven robberies occurred in a short time frame, between 

October 4, 2010, and January 16, 2011. The robberies were all concentrated geographically, 

as they occurred in either Middletown or West Chester. In all instances when two men went 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 12 - 

inside to commit the robbery, one man was always masked and the other man was not. 

Moore testified that appellant always wore a mask during the robberies because appellant 

was from the area. In the three robberies that appellant is alleged to have been the getaway 

driver, the single man that robbed the business was never wearing a mask. 

{¶ 36} Further, the style of all of the robberies was similar. The robberies all occurred 

when the businesses were open. Besides threats and an incident in which a victim was hit in 

the head with a gun, the robberies were all relatively non-violent. Moore testified that in all of 

the robberies, fake guns were used that were either fake air compressor pistols or a plastic 

sawed off shotgun. Also, all of the indicted robberies except the Advanced Auto Parts 

robbery occurred during the evening hours while it was dark. Thus, due to the similarities of 

the robberies, we find that the evidence of these robberies would have been admissible to 

establish the identity of the perpetrator in separate trials pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B). 

{¶ 37} Additionally, the record demonstrates that the trial court instructed the jury that 

it was required to consider the charges as separate matters. The trial court explained, 

"[e]ach offense is a separate and distinct matter. You must consider each count and the 

evidence applicable to it separately, and you must state your findings as to each count 

uninfluenced by your verdict as to any other count." The court also instructed the jury 

regarding the proper consideration of other acts evidence, "if you believe that the defendant 

was involved in other robberies, other bad acts, other wrongdoing * * * you cannot use that 

belief to say well, he's a bad character and so because I think he had bad character he 

committed these seven alleged robberies * * * however, be admissible for other purposes, 

such as * * * identity * * *." 

{¶ 38} As this court has previously stated, a jury is presumed to have followed the trial 

court's instructions. Ashcraft, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-12-305, 2009-Ohio-5281 at ¶ 26. The 

record in this case does not indicate that the jury disregarded the trial court's instructions or 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 13 - 

demonstrated confusion concerning the offenses and evidence presented. 

{¶ 39} Therefore, we find that plain error did not exist in joining the offenses because 

evidence of the joined offenses could have been admitted at separate trials pursuant to 

Evid.R. 404(B). Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 40} Assignment of Error No. 2: 

{¶ 41} APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS VIOLATED BY THE 

ADMISSION OF 404(B) EVIDENCE. 

{¶ 42} Appellant argues in his second assignment of error that the trial court violated 

Evid.R. 404(B) by admitting evidence of appellant's "prior bad acts." Appellant contends the 

court erred in two ways. First, the court erred by allowing the jury to consider the indicted 

robberies as evidence of identity for each of the individual robberies. Second, the court erred 

when it admitted evidence of a prior criminal conviction and uncharged robberies. 

{¶ 43} We begin by noting the standard of review. In general, we will not reverse a 

trial court's decision regarding the admission of evidence absent an abuse of discretion. 

State v. Perez, 124 Ohio St.3d 122, 2009-Ohio-6179, ¶ 96. However, when a party fails to 

object to the issue now appealed, we review for plain error. Crim.R. 52; Lang, 129 Ohio 

St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215 at ¶ 108. Additionally, when a party files a motion in limine 

regarding the exclusion of evidence but fails to timely object at trial, this court will review the 

admission of such evidence under a plain error analysis. Vore, 12th Dist. No. CA2011-08-

093, 2012-Ohio-2431 at ¶ 37, citing State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139, 2007-Ohio-5048, ¶ 

133. The court will conduct a plain error analysis because a motion in limine is a tentative, 

interlocutory, precautionary ruling by the trial court reflecting its anticipatory treatment of the 

evidentiary issue. State v. Grubb, 28 Ohio St.3d 199, 201-202 (1986). A "motion in limine" is 

defined as a "pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered 

at trial." Black's Law Dictionary (9th Ed.2009). 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 14 - 

{¶ 44} Before trial, appellant filed a motion in opposition to the state's motion "to 

permit evidence of other acts pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(B)." Appellant argued that this 

"other acts" evidence should be excluded as it was improper character evidence. The court 

granted the state's motion to allow evidence of other acts and during trial, appellant did not 

object to the admission of this evidence. Therefore, we will review the admission of this 

evidence under a plain error analysis as appellant did not object during trial and appellant's 

motion did not preserve the issue for appeal. 

{¶ 45} As stated in the first assignment of error, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or 

acts is not admissible to show the accused's character or his criminal propensity but is 

admissible to establish the identity of the perpetrator. Evid.R. 404(B); Broom, 40 Ohio St.3d 

at 282-283. See R.C. 2945.59. The admission of other acts evidence is construed against 

admissibility and must satisfy the requirements of Evid.R. 403(A). Vore at ¶ 40. Other acts 

evidence may be introduced under Evid.R. 404(B) to establish the identity of a perpetrator by 

showing that he has committed similar crimes and that a distinct, identifiable scheme, plan, 

or system was used in the commission of the charged offense. Lowe, 69 Ohio St.3d at 530. 

{¶ 46} Initially, we note that appellant's first argument is without merit. As discussed in 

the first assignment of error, evidence of the seven indicted offenses was proper 404(B) 

evidence. These offenses established the identity of the masked robber. The seven indicted 

robberies shared many similarities, such as occurring within a short time frame, in the same 

geographical area, and all either having two men, one of whom was masked, or a single 

unmasked man. Therefore, the trial court did not err in allowing the jury to consider the 

indicted offenses in every charge for the limited purpose of identity. 

{¶ 47} Appellant's second argument is that the trial court erred when it admitted 

evidence of two hotel robberies appellant and Moore allegedly performed as well as the 

Batteries Plus robbery. All of these robberies were not at issue at trial. Moore testified that 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 15 - 

he and appellant robbed a couple of hotels. He stated that it was the same plan as the other 

robberies where appellant did not go into the business. Appellant would drive to the location 

and wait while Moore would perform the robbery. Additionally, the state introduced evidence 

regarding the last robbery appellant and Moore committed at Batteries Plus. Moore 

explained that this robbery was similar to the others in that he and appellant drove around 

looking for a good location to rob, both he and appellant performed the robbery, they used 

fake guns, and appellant wore a black ski mask while Moore was unmasked. This robbery 

occurred in the same geographic location and time frame as the others and was also a nonviolent robbery. Ultimately, police linked appellant with the Batteries Plus robbery and found 

a black ski mask and a fake gun in appellant's vehicle. 

{¶ 48} We find that the trial court did not commit plain error in admitting evidence of 

the hotel and Batteries Plus robberies. The main issue in this case was the identity of the 

second man in the robberies, as this individual always wore a mask or stayed in the vehicle 

as the getaway driver. The evidence of the hotel and Batteries Plus robberies helped 

establish that appellant was the second individual involved in the crimes as these robberies 

shared many common features. The Batteries Plus robbery was relevant to show identity for 

the remainder of the robberies because the robbery occurred in the same geographic 

location and time frame as the others, appellant wore a black ski mask, fake guns were used, 

the robbery was performed by two men while the business was open, and the robbery was 

relatively non-violent. The hotel robberies were relevant to show a common scheme for the 

robberies that were committed by only one individual as appellant was the getaway driver 

and Moore went inside the business and robbed it alone. 

{¶ 49} Lastly, as discussed in the first assignment of error, the trial court instructed the 

jury that it was required to consider the charges as separate matters and instructed the jury 

regarding the proper consideration of other acts evidence. The jury is presumed to follow the 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 16 - 

trial court's instructions. Ashcraft, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-12-305, 2009-Ohio-5281 at ¶ 26. 

Moreover, nothing suggests that the jury used the evidence presented by the state to convict 

appellant on the theory he was a bad person or had a propensity toward crime. 

{¶ 50} Thus, the trial court did not commit plain error in allowing evidence of 

appellant's other acts pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B) as these acts were helpful in establishing 

identity. Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 51} Assignment of Error No. 3: 

{¶ 52} APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS VIOLATED BECAUSE THE 

TRIAL COURT ALLOWED THE TESTIMONY OF AN INCOMPETENT WITNESS. 

{¶ 53} Appellant argues the trial court committed plain error by permitting Moore to 

testify because he was an incompetent witness. Specifically, appellant contends the trial 

court erred when it did not sua sponte voir dire Moore as to his competency because he is 

diagnosed as a schizophrenic, was abusing drugs at the time of the robberies, and didn't 

remember some aspects of the robberies. 

{¶ 54} Ordinarily, we review a court's competency determination under an abuse of 

discretion standard. State v. Alkire, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-09-023, 2009-Ohio-2813, ¶ 26. 

Because appellant failed to object to Moore's testimony on the basis of competency or 

request the court to voir dire Moore, we will review this claim for plain error. State v. Laws, 

12th Dist. No. CA87-12-097 (July 18, 1988); State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. No. 79871, 2002-

Ohio-2137. As stated in the first assignment of error, an alleged error is plain error only if it is 

"obvious" and "but for the error, the outcome of the trial clearly would have been otherwise." 

Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512, 2011-Ohio-4215, ¶ at 108; Crim.R. 52(B). 

{¶ 55} According to Evid.R. 601(A) and R.C. 2317.01, "all persons are competent 

witnesses except those of unsound mind and children under ten years of age who appear 

incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts and transactions respecting which they 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 17 - 

are examined, or of relating them truthfully." In order for the trial court to have a sua sponte 

duty to inquire into a witness's competency, that competency must have been clearly called 

into question by the time the witness was called to the stand. State v. Cooper, 139 Ohio 

App.3d 149 (12th Dist.2000), citing State v. Kinney, 35 Ohio App.3d 84, 85-86 (1st 

Dist.1987). 

{¶ 56} It is prima facie evidence of unsoundness of mind if a person has been found to 

be insane or is an inmate of an insane asylum. State v. Wildman, 145 Ohio St. 379, 384 

(1945). However, witnesses who suffer from emotional or psychological illness are not per 

se incompetent to testify. State v. Gates, 8th Dist. No. 75229, 2001 WL 259184, *4 (March 

15, 2001). The Ohio Supreme Court has noted that a person who suffers from "some 

unsoundness of mind" can still be competent to testify if he "is able to correctly state matters 

which have come within his perception with respect to the issues involved and appreciates 

and understands the nature and obligation of an oath." Wildman at paragraph three of the 

syllabus. The Seventh District found that a witness who suffered from bipolar disorder and 

another witness who was stressed and depressed were not incompetent to testify because 

they were capable of correctly stating matters which they perceived and did not have difficulty 

understanding the nature and obligation of an oath. Gates at *5. Additionally, a witness who 

suffered from schizophrenia but was living and working on his own without substantial 

medication for his illness was not "unsound of mind" sufficient to require the trial court to sua 

sponte conduct a void dire examination of the witness. Jackson at ¶ 18. 

{¶ 57} At trial, Moore testified that he suffers from borderline schizophrenia. He stated 

that he currently only takes anxiety medication as he no longer needs medication for his 

mental illness. Moore stated that his mental illness did not hinder his ability to testify 

truthfully at trial. Additionally, Moore admitted that he was addicted to heroin and cocaine 

during the crimes. However, he testified that he was sober at the time of the trial and no 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 18 - 

longer has a substance abuse problem. Moore also acknowledged that it would be hard for 

him to put all the robberies in order although he can remember the basics of all the robberies. 

{¶ 58} Upon a thorough review of the record, we find that Moore was a competent 

witness and the trial court did not err in failing to voir dire Moore. There was no evidence that 

Moore was insane or an inmate of an insane asylum. While Moore suffers from borderline 

schizophrenia, he testified that he is not prescribed any medication for his mental illness and 

only takes medicine to manage his anxiety. Consequently, this case is similar to Jackson

and Gates, because Moore suffered from a mental illness but that illness did not affect his 

ability to receive just impression of facts and relate them truthfully. 

{¶ 59} Further, the testimony at trial established that Moore's substance abuse 

addiction at the time of the offenses did not render him incompetent. Although Moore stated 

that he was under the influence of heroin and cocaine at the time of the robberies, he 

indicated that he was sober at trial and recalled several specifics of the robberies. The 

record shows over 100 pages of testimony from Moore recalling the locations of the 

robberies, the time of day when each occurred, whether he performed the robbery himself or 

had assistance from appellant, and other details. Although he stated that he could not 

remember every robbery perfectly, his memory of the robberies was largely consistent with 

the other witnesses at trial. Lastly, there was no indication that Moore was unable to 

understand the importance of an oath. Thus, we find that Moore was a competent witness. 

Moore's use of drugs during the robberies and his memory of the incidents affects the 

credibility of his testimony, not its admissibility. 

{¶ 60} Thus, we find that the trial court did not err in failing to voir dire Moore regarding 

his competency to testify. Appellant's third assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 61} Assignment of Error No. 4: 

{¶ 62} APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS VIOLATED 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 19 - 

WHEN THE COURT ADMITTED EVIDENCE WHICH WAS IMPROPERLY 

AUTHENTICATED. 

{¶ 63} In appellant's fourth assignment of error, he argues the trial court erred when it 

admitted evidence which was improperly authenticated. Appellant challenges three groups of 

exhibits: a still photograph taken from a security camera at Jimmy John's, BP Drive-Thru 

surveillance videos, and a surveillance video and still photographs of the outside of 

Advanced Auto Parts.1

 Specifically, appellant argues that the exhibits with time and date 

stamps were improperly authenticated because the individual who created the video did not 

testify regarding the accuracy of this stamp. 

{¶ 64} In general, the "trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence will not be 

reversed by a reviewing court absent an abuse of discretion." State v. Jackson, 12th Dist. 

No. CA2011-01-001, 2011-Ohio-5593, ¶ 16. An abuse of discretion implies that the court's 

decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable, and not merely an error of law or 

judgment. State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, ¶ 130. 

{¶ 65} The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to 

admissibility is satisfied by introducing "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter 

in question is what its proponent claims." Evid.R. 901(A); Moshos, 12th Dist. No. CA2009-

06-008, 2010-Ohio-735 at ¶ 11. This threshold requirement for authentication of evidence is 

low and does not require conclusive proof of authenticity. State v. Easter, 75 Ohio App.3d 

22, 25 (4th Dist.1991). Instead, the state only needs to demonstrate a "reasonable 

likelihood" that the evidence is authentic. State v. Thomas, 12th Dist. No. CA2010-10-099, 

2012-Ohio-2430, ¶ 15. 

{¶ 66} Photographic and video evidence is generally authenticated in two ways. A 

 

1. These exhibits were designated as state's exhibits 9-11 and 16-20 at trial. 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 20 - 

person with knowledge to state that the photograph represents a fair and accurate depiction 

of the actual item at the time the picture was taken may authenticate the evidence. Evid.R. 

901(B)(1); State v. Penwell, 12th Dist. No. CA2010-08-019, 2011-Ohio-2100. In 

authenticating evidence through this method, there is no need to call the witness who took 

the photographs as long as a witness with knowledge can testify that the photograph is a fair 

and accurate depiction. State v. Combs, 2d Dist. No. 22712, 2009-Ohio-1943; State v. Mick, 

12th Dist. No. CA2011-08-017, 2012-Ohio-1598. 

{¶ 67} An additional way to authenticate photographic evidence is under the "silent 

witness" theory. Midland Steel Prods. Co. v. U.A.W. Local 486, 61 Ohio St.3d 121 (1991). 

Under the silent witness theory, "the photographic evidence is a 'silent witness' which speaks 

for itself, and is substantive evidence of what it portrays independent of a sponsoring 

witness." Id. at 130. Therefore, photographic evidence may be admitted upon a sufficient 

showing of the reliability of the process or system that produced the evidence." Id. Expert 

witness testimony is not required to demonstrate reliability. Id. In Midland, the Ohio 

Supreme Court found that a surveillance video tape was properly authenticated when a 

witness's testimony regarding the layout of the area corresponded with the video and the 

witness was the custodian of the video and testified that the video had not been altered. Id.

{¶ 68} We will begin by addressing whether the first group of exhibits, a still 

photograph taken from a Jimmy John's security camera, was properly authenticated. At trial, 

a West Chester police officer testified that he investigated the robbery at Jimmy John's and 

viewed a security camera which recorded the robbery. A still photograph was then made of 

the video and introduced at trial. The photograph showed the masked individual during the 

robbery. The officer testified that he recognized the still photograph from the security camera 

video. Further, an employee of Jimmy John's who was present at the time of the robbery 

testified that the photograph was a "true and accurate" representation of the masked 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 21 - 

individual the night of the robbery. Thus, we find this exhibit was properly admitted as two 

persons with knowledge testified that the photograph was accurate. 

{¶ 69} Next, we discuss whether the second group of exhibits, the surveillance videos 

of the BP Drive-Thru robberies, were properly authenticated. Middletown Detective Richard 

Bush testified that he investigated both robberies at the Drive-Thru. Bush viewed footage of 

the robberies that was recorded by the Drive-Thru's digital recording system, pulled and 

stored the video on a "thumb drive," and then made a CD of the footage stored on the 

"thumb drive." At trial, the state introduced this CD as an exhibit and Bush confirmed that 

this CD was an accurate depiction of what he saw on the original footage. Additionally, 

Moore testified regarding these exhibits and identified the Drive-Thru and himself in the 

video. Thus, we find that the second group of exhibits was properly authenticated and the 

court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these exhibits. 

{¶ 70} Lastly, we address the third group of exhibits concerning the Advanced Auto 

Parts robbery. Middletown Detective Ken Rogers testified that he investigated the Advanced 

Auto Parts robbery and discovered a video from a neighboring business that captured the 

road and an alley outside Advanced Auto Parts. The video shows an orange Pontiac Sunfire 

driving by Advanced Auto Parts at 10:10 on the morning of the robbery. Fifteen minutes 

later, the vehicle drives by Advanced Auto Parts again and then parks behind a dumpster, 

out of view of Advanced Auto Parts. The time and date stamp on the video corresponds with 

the time and date of the robbery. Rogers stated that he obtained this video from a 

neighboring business and viewed the original video on a small monitor in the business. The 

owner of the business then copied the video when Rogers was present. Rogers explained 

that the video and still photographs introduced at trial were accurate representations of what 

he originally viewed. Rogers also testified that to his knowledge, the time and date stamp at 

the bottom of the video and still photographs was true and accurate. Additionally, Roger's 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 22 - 

identification of locations of the video camera, the Advanced Auto Part store, and the location 

of the neighboring business corresponded with the video. Therefore, we find that the trial 

court did not err in admitting this video and still photographs as the evidence established that 

the video and the time and date stamp were reliable. 

{¶ 71} Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting the state's exhibits. Appellant's 

fourth assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 72} Assignment of Error No. 5: 

{¶ 73} THE STATE'S EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT AND AGAINST THE 

MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶ 74} Appellant argues that his seven robbery convictions were not supported by 

sufficient evidence and were against the manifest weight of the evidence because the state 

failed to prove the identity of the masked robber. Appellant contends that the only evidence 

linking him to each of the robberies was the testimony of Moore who was an unreliable 

witness because his memory was poor, his testimony was inconsistent with other witnesses, 

he is schizophrenic, and he was under the influence of heroin and crack-cocaine during the 

robberies. 

{¶ 75} As this court has previously stated, "a finding that a conviction is supported by 

the weight of the evidence must necessarily include a finding of sufficiency." State v. Wilson, 

12th Dist. No. CA2006-01-007, 2007-Ohio-2298, ¶ 35. In turn, while a review of the 

sufficiency of the evidence and a review of the manifest weight of the evidence are separate 

and legally distinct concepts, this court's determination that appellant's conviction was 

supported by the manifest weight of the evidence will be dispositive of the issue of 

sufficiency. State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). 

{¶ 76} A manifest weight challenge concerns the inclination of the greater amount of 

credible evidence, offered in a trial, to support one side of the issue rather than the other. 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 23 - 

State v. Clements, 12th Dist. No. CA2009-11-277, 2010-Ohio-4801, ¶ 19. A court 

considering whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence must review 

the entire record, weighing the evidence and all reasonable inferences, and consider the 

credibility of the witnesses. State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57, 2006-Ohio-160, ¶ 39. 

However, while appellate review includes the responsibility to consider the credibility of 

witnesses and weight given to the evidence, these issues are matters primarily for the trier of 

fact since it is in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be 

given to the evidence. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one of the 

syllabus. Therefore, the question upon review is whether in resolving conflicts in the 

evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of 

justice that the conviction must be reversed. State v. Good, 12th Dist. No. CA2007-03-082, 

2008-Ohio-4502, ¶ 25. 

{¶ 77} To be guilty of robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), the state was required 

to prove appellant, "in attempting or committing a theft offense or in fleeing immediately after 

the attempt or offense," "inflict[ed], attempt[ed] to inflict, or theaten[ed] to inflict physical harm 

on another." A person commits a theft offense if that person, "with purpose to deprive the 

owner of property or services," "knowingly obtain[ed] or exert[ed] control over either the 

property or services," "without consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent." 

R.C. 2913.02(A)(1); 2913.01(K)(1). 

{¶ 78} We will begin by addressing the robberies of the BP Drive-Thru on October 4 

and November 12, 2010. Moore testified that he and appellant worked together in robbing 

the Drive-Thru on both occasions. Appellant chose the Drive-Thru as a good location to rob 

as he is familiar with the Butler County area and Moore is from Columbus, Ohio. During both 

robberies, Moore stated that appellant parked his vehicle on a residential side street that was 

out of view of the Drive-Thru. Moore then robbed the Drive-Thru unmasked, using a fake 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 24 - 

plastic gun for both robberies. After Moore completed the robbery, he ran back to the side 

street where appellant was parked, and the two men quickly drove away. The men spilt the 

money from the robbery in half. Moore identified himself on a surveillance video from the 

Drive-Thru recorded on October 4 and November 12, 2010, which shows a man with a fake 

plastic gun robbing the business. However, a Middletown Detective testified that he 

investigated these robberies and did not pursue a lead which suggested that a maroon SUV 

was idling close to the Drive-Thru on one of the nights of the robberies. 

{¶ 79} We find that appellant's convictions regarding the robberies of the BP DriveThru were not against the manifest weight of the evidence as Moore's testimony and the 

surveillance video established that the greater inclination of evidence shows appellant was 

involved in the robbery. Although the detective did not pursue a lead regarding one of the 

robberies, we do not find this fact alone enough to show that appellant did not commit the 

robberies. Instead, Moore's testimony and the surveillance video provide enough evidence to 

convict appellant of these robberies. 

{¶ 80} Appellant's next conviction concerned the October 5, 2010 robbery of a Waffle 

House. A Waffle House manager, customer, and Moore testified regarding the robbery. All 

three witnesses testified that two men entered the restaurant, one unmasked and one who 

wore a checkered bandana on his face. Moore explained that appellant was not planning on 

going in during this robbery but because of the number of people in the restaurant decided to 

accompany Moore and used a shirt in the back seat of his car to cover his face. The 

manager and the customer testified that they were afraid for their safety and that the 

unmasked man was not armed while the masked man had a gun that was silver and 

appeared real. The customer went on to explain that the gun at first did not appear real 

because of the size of the weapon. Moore stated that he was not armed during the robbery 

but that appellant used a fake gun that was black. Moore explained that he and appellant 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 25 - 

stole the cash out of the restaurant's cash registers. Like the Drive-Thru robberies, appellant 

picked the Waffle House as a target and he and appellant split the money from the robbery. 

Additionally, the manager identified appellant as the masked man, though the manager 

admitted to investigating appellant and the robbery online before trial. 

{¶ 81} We find that appellant's conviction regarding the Waffle House robbery is not 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although the manager admittedly investigated 

appellant before trial and the victims' testimony regarding the gun was inconsistent with 

Moore's description, the other evidence established that appellant was involved in this 

robbery. All three witnesses were consistent regarding the number of robbers, the masked 

and unmasked individual, and the events which took place during the robbery. Moreover, 

Moore identified appellant as the masked robber and his description of the robbery was 

consistent with the manager's and customer's descriptions. Therefore, appellant's conviction 

is not against the manifest weight. 

{¶ 82} The next robbery to occur was of the West Chester Great Clips on October 14, 

2010. Both Great Clips employees consistently testified that around 8:40 p.m., an unmasked 

man entered the salon, asked if they were still open, and then produced a gun and asked for 

the store's money. One of the employees described the gun used as silver with a long 

handle. Further, both employees stated that as the robber was leaving the store, one of the 

employees tried to follow him. However, the employee halted when Moore told her to stop 

and the other employee told her it was not worth it. 

{¶ 83} Moore's testimony was largely consistent with the employees' recitation of the 

robbery. Though he described the gun used as black, his testimony was consistent in many 

other ways. Like the employees' testimony, Moore stated that he went into the hair salon, 

asked if the salon was still open, produced a weapon, and took the money. Additionally, 

Moore stated that as he was exiting the business, one of the employees followed him but 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 26 - 

then stopped after he and the other employee told her to stop. Moore testified that appellant 

picked the Great Clips to rob, appellant was the getaway driver, and the two men spilt the 

money from the robbery. Therefore, because of the consistencies in Moore's and the 

employees' testimony along with Moore's identification of appellant, appellant's conviction is 

not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶ 84} Appellant's fourth conviction involved the robbery of Dillman's Grocery. The 

state presented two victims who testified that they were working at the grocery store the night 

of the robbery and observed two men rob the business. One of the victims was the manager 

of the store who stated that two men, one wearing a black ski mask and one not wearing a 

mask, came into the business with guns. The manager described the guns the men were 

carrying as black pistols. The employee also described the robbery in this manner and both 

the employee and the manager identified a mask and a fake gun recovered from appellant's 

vehicle as matching those used in the robbery. During the robbery, the masked man became 

frustrated with the employee as she was having trouble opening her cash register drawer. 

Both victims testified that the masked man threatened to shoot the employee in the stomach 

and another girl in the leg. Neither the manager nor the employee was able to identify the 

masked robber. The victims stated that the men stole approximately $10,000 from the 

business. 

{¶ 85} Moore testified that both he and appellant went into Dillman's Grocery with fake 

pistols and took a total of $4,000 from the business. Similar to the victims' testimony, he 

stated that he did not wear a mask while appellant wore a black ski mask. Moore testified 

that appellant had "words" with one of the employees and that both men pointed their guns at 

the employees "pretty much the whole time." Like the other robberies, appellant chose the 

location and the men divided the money in half. Though Moore's testimony regarding the 

amount they stole from Dillman's was inconsistent with the victims' testimony, this 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 27 - 

discrepancy does not make appellant's convictions against the manifest weight in light of the 

other evidence presented at trial. Appellant's conviction was supported by Moore's 

identification of appellant as the masked man, the consistency of Moore's and the victims' 

testimony, and the victims' identification of the mask and the gun found in appellant's vehicle 

as similar to those used in the robbery. 

{¶ 86} Next, appellant was convicted of robbing Jimmy John's on January 8, 2011. 

The state presented two witnesses who were working at the restaurant at the time of the 

robbery. Moore and these witnesses all testified that two men entered the restaurant, one 

wearing a black ski mask and one unmasked. Moore explained that like the other robberies, 

he did not wear a mask while appellant wore a black ski mask. The witnesses were unable 

to identify appellant as one of the robbers. Moore and the witnesses all testified that both 

men had a gun and that the masked robber was holding the witnesses down with the gun 

during the robbery. The witnesses explained that during the robbery, the men had a hard 

time finding the back exit door and had to ask the employees directions on how to leave. 

Similarly, Moore acknowledged that he and appellant could not find the back door and had to 

ask for directions. Moore and appellant spilt the money from the robbery. At trial, the state 

introduced still photographs dated January 8, 2011, from the restaurant's surveillance system 

and the witnesses stated that these photos depicted the robbers. Moore identified himself 

and appellant as the robbers in the photos. Consequently, appellant's conviction regarding 

the Jimmy John's robbery was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

{¶ 87} Appellant's seventh and final robbery conviction concerned the robbery of 

Advanced Auto Parts on January 16, 2011. Two Advanced Auto Parts employees testified 

that an unmasked man entered the business followed by a masked man. Both men were 

armed. Initially, only one employee was in the front part of the store. Once the second 

robber entered the business, the second employee came into the front room. After the 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 28 - 

second employee entered the room, the masked man placed the gun at the back this 

employee's head. The employee stated that he heard a gun cocking sound. The robbers 

then proceeded to empty the cash registers but were unable to take the money in the safe. 

The employees identified the fake gun and mask recovered from appellant's car as the gun 

and mask used in the robbery. 

{¶ 88} Moore's testimony regarding this robbery was largely consistent with the 

employees' testimony. He stated that he entered the business first, followed by appellant 

who wore a black ski mask. He and appellant used fake guns and appellant placed the fake 

gun at the back of one of the employee's head. Moore stated that the guns were fake and 

would not be able to make a gun cocking sound. Moore identified the fake gun and black ski 

mask recovered from appellant's car as the same gun and mask used in the robbery. Moore 

stated that the men took the money in the cash register but were unable to take the money in 

the safe. 

{¶ 89} A surveillance video obtained from a neighboring business was also introduced 

at trial. This video showed an orange Pontiac circling Advanced Auto Parts during the 20 

minutes before the robbery. Moore stated that he rode in appellant's vehicle, an orange 

Pontiac Sunfire, that appellant was driving to the robbery. Moore explained that they drove 

around the business several times before deciding to rob it. Moore identified the vehicle in 

the surveillance video as appellant's vehicle. Appellant's conviction is not against the 

manifest weight because of the consistencies between the employees' and Moore's 

testimony, Moore's identification of appellant as being involved in the robbery, and the 

surveillance video. 

{¶ 90} Thus, appellant's seven robbery convictions were supported by sufficient 

evidence and were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although there were 

some inconsistencies at trial, "[a] defendant is not entitled to a reversal on manifest weight 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 29 - 

grounds simply because there was inconsistent evidence presented at trial." State v. Jones, 

12th Dist. No. CA2011-05-044, 2012-Ohio-1480, ¶ 28. A jury is in the best position to take 

into account the witnesses' demeanor and thus to assess their credibility, and therefore is 

entitled to believe or disbelieve all, part, or none of the testimony of a witness. Id. Although 

Moore is a schizophrenic and used drugs during the robberies, his testimony was consistent 

with the other witnesses' testimony at trial and identified appellant as being involved in the 

robberies. Additionally, the surveillance videos and testimony of the victims were evidence to 

support appellant's convictions. 

{¶ 91} Appellant's fifth assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 92} Assignment of Error No. 6: 

{¶ 93} APPELLANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS PREJUDICED 

BY THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL COUNSEL. 

{¶ 94} Appellant alleges that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation 

of his constitutional rights. To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, appellant 

must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness 

and that he was prejudiced as a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688, 

104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). In order to demonstrate prejudice, appellant must establish, but for 

counsel's errors, a reasonable probability exists that the result of his trial would have been 

different. State v. Ritchie, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-12-304, 2009-Ohio-5280, ¶ 21, citing 

Strickland at 694. The failure to make an adequate showing on either prong is fatal to 

appellant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. State v. Bell, 12th Dist. No. CA2008-05-

044, 2009-Ohio-2335, ¶ 77, citing Strickland at 697. Judicial scrutiny of counsel's conduct 

must be highly deferential. Strickland at 689. 

{¶ 95} Appellant argues that counsel was ineffective because (1) counsel failed to 

move to sever each robbery offense into a separate trial and (2) counsel failed to challenge 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 30 - 

Moore's competency to testify as a witness. As discussed in the first assignment of error, no 

plain error existed in joining the offenses because evidence of the joined offenses could have 

been admitted in separate trials pursuant to Evid.R. 404(B). Additionally, in the third 

assignment of error, we held that the trial court did not err in failing to voir dire Moore 

because Moore was a competent witness. Therefore, given the lack of error regarding 

severance and competency, appellant cannot demonstrate that his trial counsel's 

performance was deficient or that his counsel's choice in not requesting severance of the 

robbery offenses and not challenging Moore's competency to testify as a witness prejudiced 

appellant to the point of depriving him of a fair trial. 

{¶ 96} Appellant's sixth assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 97} Assignment of Error No. 7: 

{¶ 98} APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS PREJUDICED BY 

CUMULATIVE ERROR. 

{¶ 99} In his seventh and final assignment of error, appellant argues that, even if we 

should determine that the individual assigned errors were harmless, the cumulative impact of 

these errors resulted in unfair prejudice to appellant. 

{¶ 100} "According to the cumulative error doctrine, 'a conviction will be reversed 

where the cumulative effect of errors in a trial deprives a defendant of the constitutional right 

to a fair trial even though each of the numerous instances of trial court error does not 

individually constitute a cause for reversal.'" State v. McClurkin, 12th Dist. No. CA2007-03-

071, 2010-Ohio-1938, ¶ 105, quoting State v. Garner, 74 Ohio St.3d 49, 64 (1995). 

However, appellant has not shown that any errors of law occurred during his trial. 

Consequently, we fail to see how the absence of prejudicial error can rise to the level of 

cumulative error. Therefore, appellant was not deprived of a fair trial, and the cumulative 

error doctrine is inapplicable. 
Butler CA2011-11-209

 - 31 - 

{¶ 101} Appellant's seventh assignment of error is overruled. 

{¶ 102} Judgment affirmed. 

 

 HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.