Court Opinion

ID: 9905363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 14:06:03.184446+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:12.866589
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Ojile, 2023-Ohio-4277.]

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                   FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                              HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 STATE OF OHIO,                                      :   APPEAL NO. C-230032
                                                         TRIAL NO. B-1007149C
         Plaintiff-Appellee,                         :

   vs.                                               :       O P I N I O N.

 UGBE OJILE,                                         :

     Defendant-Appellant.                            :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause
                           Remanded

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 29, 2023

Melissa Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Keith Sauter, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

The Olawale Law Firm, LLC, and Emmanuel Olawale, for Defendant-Appellant.
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

BOCK, Judge.

        {¶1}     Defendant-appellant Ugbe Ojile appeals the Hamilton County Court of

Common Pleas’ judgment denying his Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion for a new trial on

several charges related to Ojile’s and his codefendant’s participation in a string of

robberies targeting casino patrons. In his motion for a new trial, supported by

affidavits from his codefendant and a jailhouse informant, as well as a judgment entry

of acquittal of one of the robberies charged under a different case number, Ojile now

challenges four of his convictions: three for aggravated robbery and one for conspiracy

to commit aggravated robbery.

        {¶2}     Because we hold that the common pleas court erroneously denied Ojile’s

motion for a new trial with respect to the aggravated robbery of Daniel1 Duncan, we

reverse the court’s judgment in part and remand the cause for a new trial on that

charge only. We affirm the lower court’s judgment in all other respects.

                                    Facts and Procedure

        {¶3}     Following a 2011 bench trial, the trial court convicted Ojile of multiple

counts of aggravated robbery, robbery, complicity to robbery, and conspiracy to

commit aggravated robbery under two case numbers. At trial, the state submitted

evidence demonstrating that Ojile and his codefendant, Kenyatta Erkins, had worked

together to target patrons of two gambling casinos. Erkins would enter the casino and

look for “targets” who had won large sums of cash while Ojile waited in a car in the

parking garage. Once they acquired their targets, Erkins and Ojile would follow them

from the casino to their residences and rob them at gunpoint. Amy Hoover, the mother

of one of Erkins’s children, participated in a few of these robberies.

1 Daniel Duncan’s first name has been spelled “Danielle” in other documents within the record, but
we are following the spelling of his name as set forth in Ojile’s indictment for this crime.

                                                      2
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

        {¶4}    After this court’s opinion on direct appeal and on appeal from the denial

of Ojile’s 2016 postconviction petition, Ojile stood convicted of four counts of

aggravated robbery, five counts of complicity, and a single count of conspiracy in the

case numbered B-1007149 and one count of robbery in the case numbered B-

1006797C. State v. Ojile, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-110677 and C-100678, 2012-Ohio-

6015 (“Ojile I”); State v. Ojile, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-160425, 2017-Ohio-9319

(“Ojile II”).

                                           The Trial

        {¶5}    The state tried Ojile and Erkins together. Hoover accepted a plea deal

from the state in exchange for her testimony at their bench trial. She testified that she

had only participated in three robberies and, thus, could only provide information as

to those crimes. Tyrone Tanks, a jailhouse informant incarcerated with Ojile in the

Hamilton County Justice Center, testified at trial that Ojile had confessed his

involvement in several of the robberies for which he had been charged. Relevant to

this appeal are Ojile’s convictions related to the 2010 aggravated robberies of Michael

Weisbrod, Daniel Duncan, Tien Dao, and Kiran Racheria.

                                   Michael Weisbrod

        {¶6}    Weisbrod was robbed twice. Because Ojile argues that his acquittal of

Weisbrod’s first robbery impacts his motion for a new trial related to the second

robbery, we discuss both.

                                Weisbrod’s first robbery

        {¶7}    Ojile, Erkins, and Hoover were charged with robbing Weisbrod in

February 2009. At trial, Weisbrod testified that he had left a casino on February 9,

2009, with more than $8,000 in cash and returned to his apartment in the early

                                                3
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

morning hours of February 10. Video from the casino’s security camera showed Erkins

following Weisbrod that night.

        {¶8}    After Weisbrod had returned home, a woman knocked on his door and

asked him if anyone was living in the apartment downstairs. Weisbrod told her, “No,”

and she left. On the night of February 10, a man came to Weisbrod’s door, asked the

same question, and received the same response. Then, Weisbrod testified, on the night

of February 11, he was in the basement of his apartment building, checking for the

cause of a power outage, when a man and woman confronted him, tied him up, and

demanded to know where the money was in his apartment. The robbers left with

Weisbrod’s car keys, cell phone, and more than $8,000 in cash.

        {¶9}    Hoover testified at trial that she, Olije, and Erkins had participated in

this robbery. Tanks testified that Ojile had provided him with a detailed account of this

night and had said that he was not concerned with this charge because he had an

airline ticket showing that he was in New York City at the time of the robbery.

According to Tanks, Ojile also said that he had never boarded the flight and was going

to use that airline ticket to create a false alibi.

        {¶10} Ojile, Erkins, and Hoover were convicted of the 2009 robbery. But

following postconviction proceedings, Ojile was acquitted of this crime after

submitting an affidavit from a United Airlines record custodian attesting that Ojile had

boarded the flights to and from New York City.

                                Weisbrod’s second robbery

        {¶11} In April 2010, Weisbrod was again robbed of a large sum of money upon

his return home from a casino late at night. He testified that two men assaulted him

on his front porch. They ordered Weisbrod to his knees and pointed a gun at him. After

                                                      4
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

taking his money, the attackers drove away in a white SUV. Weisbrod testified that he

could see his attackers and had told investigating officers that he would be able to

identify them if he saw them again. He explained that the porchlight had been on and

the men were not wearing masks.

       {¶12} About six months after the April 2010 robbery, police arrested Ojile,

Erkins, and Hoover for a string of robberies. After the television news displayed

pictures of the three suspects, Weisbrod contacted police to inform them that he

recognized Hoover as the woman who had knocked on his door shortly before the

February 2009 robbery. Further, during the police investigation and in court, he

identified Ojile and Erkins as the two men who had robbed him in April 2010.

       {¶13} The trial court convicted Ojile for the April 2010 robbery. Ojile now

challenges this conviction in his motion for a new trial.

                                     Daniel Duncan

       {¶14} Duncan testified at trial that he was a “professional gambler” and that

he had seen Erkins and Ojile together at a casino on several occasions. In April 2010,

Duncan left a casino to return home to his apartment in the Oakley neighborhood of

Cincinnati. Because he had been robbed before, Duncan was carrying a .40-caliber

Glock in his back pocket as well as Smith and Wesson ammunition. After exiting from

his car, a person he described as a six-foot man wearing a black hoodie and bandana

pointed a gun at his head. Duncan stumbled and his own gun fell out of his back

pocket. The single attacker stole Duncan’s gun and ammunition and more than $1,200

before driving off in a white car.

       {¶15} In October 2010, on the night when Ojile and Erkins were arrested,

police searched the backpack located between Ojile’s feet on the passenger-side

                                               5
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

floorboard of the car that Erkins had been driving. Inside, they recovered Duncan’s

gun and ammunition as well as some of Ojile’s personal papers.

       {¶16} The jailhouse informant, Tanks, testified that Ojile had told him about

a robbery where he had stolen the victim’s gun. Ojile and Erkins were both charged

with the aggravated robbery of Duncan. Ojile was convicted of this robbery and Erkins

was acquitted. But in 2013, Erkins signed an affidavit attesting that he was solely

responsible for Duncan’s robbery.

                                        Tien Dao

       {¶17} In June 2010, Dao returned home from a casino with winnings totaling

$1,500. He parked his car in the driveway and opened his garage door. As he was

entering his garage, a man wearing a black shirt and mask and brandishing a gun tried

to grab him. A second man also wearing a mask and brandishing a gun arrived. One of

the men hit Dao in the head with a gun while he was trying to escape inside his home.

The two attackers followed him inside and stole Dao’s wallet and fled. Dao had his

social security card, a California driver’s license, and credit cards in his wallet.

Surveillance video showed Erkins following Dao as he left the casino earlier that night.

Additionally, Dao’s 16-year-old neighbor across the street saw, from his bedroom

window, two men attacking Dao in his garage and called the police.

       {¶18} Following Ojile’s arrest, police officers searched the apartment Ojile

shared with his girlfriend and recovered Dao’s California driver’s license, social

security card, and credit cards from the top of a kitchen cabinet. Ojile’s girlfriend

testified that Ojile often kept his keys and wallet on top of the kitchen cabinet.

                                                6
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

        {¶19} Tanks testified at trial that Ojile confessed to being involved in the Dao

robbery and said that he was going to claim that a police officer named Morgan had

planted Dao’s personal effects in Ojile’s apartment.

        {¶20} Ojile, Erkins, and Hoover were all charged with Dao’s aggravated

robbery. The trial court convicted Ojile and acquitted Erkins. Although she did not

testify about this robbery at trial, Hoover entered a guilty plea to this crime and was

convicted.

                                         Kiran Racheria2

        {¶21} In the early morning hours of October 3, 2010, Kiran Racheria returned

to his apartment complex in Blue Ash after winning at a casino. He became alarmed

when he saw a man emerge from behind a tree. Racheria woke up his friend, who had

been sleeping, and the two of them exited from the car. Racheria attempted to call 911

from his cell phone. His friend attempted to open the apartment door, but was having

trouble, so he ran away and left Racheria alone.

        {¶22} At that point, a man wearing a dark mask and hood, who was

brandishing a gun, ordered Racheria to sit on his knees. Racheria refused and said that

the police were coming. Upon hearing a siren, Racheria tried to flee but the attacker

struck him three times with the gun and threatened to shoot him. The attacker put his

hand in Racheria’s left pants pocket, pulled out his cell phone headset, threw it on the

ground, and fled. After the police arrived, paramedics took Racheria to the hospital

because of a large gash on his head.

        {¶23} Surveillance tapes showed Erkins following Racheria as he left the

casino that night. And cell phone records showed that Ojile was in the Blue Ash area

2 Racheria’s name has been spelled Racherla in other documents within the record, but we are
following the spelling of his name as set forth in Ojile’s indictment for this crime.

                                                       7
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the night of the attack. A few days later, police arrested Ojile and Erkins for these

robberies. Police found Duncan’s gun in Ojile’s backpack. The gun had Racheria’s DNA

on it. As a result of this crime, Erkins was found guilty of felonious assault and

aggravated robbery, but after merger of the offenses, he was convicted of aggravated

robbery. Ojile was convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery.

                                   Motion for New Trial

       {¶24} In September 2021, after this court concluded that the trial court should

have granted Ojile leave to file his motion for a new trial because he had been

unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence supporting his motion, see State

v. Ojile, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200340, 2021-Ohio-2955 (“Ojile III”), Ojile filed his

motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. In the motion, Ojile

challenges his convictions for the 2010 aggravated robberies of Weisbrod, Duncan,

and Dao as well as his conviction for conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, which

involved Racheria.

       {¶25} In support of his motion, Ojile submitted (1) Tanks’s August 2018

affidavit, which recanted his testimony against Ojile at trial and admitted that his plea

agreement with federal authorities contained a “sealed supplement” guaranteeing him

a substantial reduction in his federal sentence in exchange for his assistance in other

cases; (2) Erkins’s December 2019 affidavit in which he implicated himself in the

Duncan and Racheria robberies, attesting to Ojile’s innocence in those crimes by

admitting that he had planted Duncan’s gun in Ojile’s backpack, and, with respect to

the Dao robbery, claimed to have been in possession of Dao’s California driver’s

license, not Ojile, and was “shocked” when the officer at trial testified that Dao’s

identification cards were recovered from Ojile’s apartment; and (3) the judgment entry

                                               8
                     OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

acquitting Ojile of the 2009 Weisbrod aggravated robbery. Following oral arguments

on Ojile’s motion, the common pleas court denied Ojile’s new-trial motion.

       {¶26} In its decision, the common pleas court found that Erkins’s affidavit was

not “newly discovered evidence” and was not credible. It indicated that it was giving

the affidavit no weight. But then the court seemed to retreat from its credibility finding

and considered Erkins’s statements, concluding that Erkins’s admissions about the

evidence linking Ojile to the robberies—planting Duncan’s gun in Ojile’s backpack and

being the one who was in possession of Dao’s identification cards—merely

contradicted the evidence presented at trial.

       {¶27} With respect to Tanks’s affidavit, the court found that it suffered from

credibility issues because Tanks had waited to submit the affidavit until after he had

received the “benefit of case consideration” per his plea agreement with federal

authorities. But the court then found that even taking Tanks’s statements in his

affidavit at face value, they failed to disclose a strong probability that a new trial would

change the result. Additionally, the court noted that the testimony Tanks now says was

fabricated—that Ojile had stolen a gun from a robbery victim, that Ojile was going to

create a false alibi in the 2009 Weisbrod robbery, and that Ojile had confessed

involvement in the Dao robbery—had been detailed and comported with other

evidence at trial.

       {¶28} Finally, the court rejected Ojile’s argument that the judgment acquitting

him of Weisbrod’s first aggravated robbery justified a new trial on Weisbrod’s second

robbery. It noted that the 2010 conviction had been based on Weisbrod’s identification

of Ojile and Erkins as the men who had robbed him, rather than on Tanks’s or Hoover’s

testimony.

                                                 9
                    OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

                                      Law and Analysis

        {¶29} Ojile asserts in a single assignment of error that the trial court abused

its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial.

        {¶30} We review a lower court’s decision to deny a new trial on grounds of

newly discovered evidence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. State v. LaMar, 95

Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, 767 N.E.2d 166, ¶ 85. A motion for a new trial in a

criminal case, based on newly discovered evidence, is warranted where the new

evidence (1) discloses a strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is

granted, (2) has been discovered since the trial, (3) is such as could not in the exercise

of due diligence have been discovered before the trial, (4) is material to the issues, (5)

is not merely cumulative to former evidence, and (6) does not merely impeach or

contradict the former evidence. State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505, 76 N.E.2d 370 (1947),

syllabus.

        {¶31} In this appeal, the parties focus on the first and sixth Petro factors, and

no one explicitly contests that the other Petro factors had been satisfied, including that

the new evidence was material to the issues at hand, not merely cumulative to former

evidence, and had been discovered since the trial.3

            Judgment Entry Acquitting Ojile of the First Weisbrod Robbery

        {¶32} Ojile submitted the judgment entry acquitting him of the 2009 robbery

of Weisbrod in support of the portion of his new-trial motion involving Weisbrod’s

3 We note that the common pleas court found that Erkins’s affidavit was not “newly discovered
evidence.” But under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the common pleas court is required to follow a
reviewing court’s decision on a matter in the same case. Giancola v. Azem, 153 Ohio St.3d 594,
2018-Ohio-1694, 109 N.E.3d 1194, ¶ 14-16. Here, this court, in Ojile III, held that Ojile had been
unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence underlying his motion for a new trial,
which included Erkins’s affidavit. Ojile III, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200340, 2021-Ohio-2955, at ¶
19. Thus, the lower court did not have the authority to disregard this court’s holding and determine
that Erkins’s affidavit was not newly discovered evidence. Regardless, the lower court did consider
Erkins’s affidavit and determined it did not satisfy two of the Petro factors.

                                                    10
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

2010 aggravated robbery. He argues that his acquittal in the first robbery renders

Weisbrod’s in-court identification of him as one of his attackers in the second robbery

unreliable. In support, he relies on the Sixth Circuit decision in Erkins v. Chuvalas,

684 Fed.Appx. 493 (6th Cir.2017), where the court reviewed the district court’s denial

of codefendant Erkins’s habeas petition. In addressing whether the state prosecutor’s

display of a photograph of Erkins to Weisbrod was impermissibly suggestive and

rendered Weisbrod’s in-court identification unreliable, the Sixth Circuit held that

although the state court should have analyzed the factors set forth in Neil v. Biggers,

409 U.S. 188, 200, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972), as to the reliability of the

identification, it ultimately determined that:

       The circumstances here are not so one-sided that it was objectively

       unreasonable for the Ohio courts to conclude that Weisbrod’s

       identification was reliable. The Ohio courts’ conclusion that Weisbrod’s

       testimony was reliable is buttressed by the fact that he identified Amy

       Hoover as the person who knocked on his door (related to the first

       robbery), and Hoover confessed to doing so, indicating that other parts

       of Weisbrod’s recollection of the robberies were accurate.

Erkins at 498.

       {¶33} Here, we cannot say that the common pleas court abused its discretion

in denying a motion for a new trial with respect to Weisbrod’s second robbery. Given

that Weisbrod did not himself identify Ojile as participating in the 2009 robbery, and

considering the totality of the evidence, the entry acquitting Ojile of the 2009 robbery

does not affect Weisbrod’s identification of Ojile as one of his attackers in the 2010

robbery. Weisbrod testified that he could view Ojile during the 2010 robbery because

                                                 11
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

the porch light had been on and Ojile had not been wearing a mask. And Weisbrod

testified that he had told investigators specifically that he would be able to identify the

two men who robbed him in 2010.

       {¶34} Weisbrod’s recollections of both robberies appear to have been

accurate, as the federal appellate court pointed out, where Weisbrod had correctly

identified Hoover as the woman who had knocked on his door the day before the 2009

robbery. Further, Weisbrod never testified that two men had robbed him in 2009;

instead, he testified that one man and one woman had robbed him, it had been dark,

and he could not see them. Considering (1) Weisbrod’s testimony at trial regarding

both robberies; (2) the fact that Hoover, who seems to have falsely testified about the

2009 robbery, did not testify about the 2010 robbery; and (3) this court’s holding in

Ojile’s direct appeal that Weisbrod’s pretrial and in-court identification of Ojile as one

of the attackers in the 2010 robbery was reliable, Ojile I, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-

110677 and C-110678, 2012-Ohio-6015, at ¶ 78, we hold that Ojile has not

demonstrated that the judgment entry acquitting him of the 2009 robbery discloses a

strong probability that a new trial on the 2010 robbery would yield a different result.

                   Tyrone Tanks’s and Kenyatta Erkins’s Affidavits

       {¶35} Ojile submitted Tyrone Tanks’s and Kenyatta Erkins’s affidavits in

support of his new-trial motion involving the remaining three counts. We note that

despite the common pleas court’s finding that the affidavits were not credible, the

court considered both affidavits at “face value” and thus, we do the same.

       {¶36} As an initial matter, while we will consider the impact of Tanks’s specific

recantations of his trial testimony with respect to each robbery, we hold that the plea

agreement with federal authorities guaranteeing Tanks a reduced federal sentence in

                                                12
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

exchange for his testimony against Ojile does not disclose a strong probability of

changing the result if a new trial is granted. At trial, defense counsel cross-examined

Tanks regarding a deal with federal authorities and Tanks testified that he was

“hoping” for a reduction in his federal sentence in exchange for his testimony against

Ojile. Thus, even though the trier of fact was unaware that Tanks’s reduction in his

federal sentence was guaranteed, and not merely hoped for, it was aware that Tanks

had an agreement in place with federal authorities and was able to evaluate the

testimony accordingly.

                                  Duncan Robbery

       {¶37} Ojile argues that Erkins’s affidavit—Erkins admitted that he alone was

responsible for robbing Duncan and that he had placed Duncan’s stolen gun into

Ojile’s bag shortly before they were arrested—discloses a strong probability that a

different result would be reached if a new trial was granted on this charge. We agree.

       {¶38} Only Ojile was convicted of the Duncan aggravated robbery because

police found Duncan’s gun in Ojile’s backpack. There was no video surveillance

showing anyone following Duncan at the casino and there were no cell phone records

demonstrating that Ojile had been in the Oakley area the night Duncan was robbed.

The gun was the only piece of evidence tying Ojile to Duncan’s robbery. Additionally,

Tanks now attests that Ojile did not confess that he had participated in a robbery

where the victim’s gun was stolen, and instead, had told Tanks that the gun that was

found in his backpack must have belonged to Erkins.

       {¶39} In determining that the new evidence discloses a strong probability of a

different result, we keep in mind that while Ojile has not disputed that his backpack

was in Erkins’s car, he has consistently maintained his innocence in the Duncan

                                             13
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

robbery. And, as early as 2013, Erkins admitted that he was solely responsible for the

robbery. This admission comports with evidence presented at trial that Duncan was

robbed by one man, and that the gun stolen from Duncan was then used in the

Racheria aggravated robbery for which Erkins had been found guilty, not Ojile. Ojile

and Erkins were not arrested for this string of robberies until a few days after the

Racheria robbery. Erkins would have had the opportunity to place Duncan’s gun in

Ojile’s backpack either the night they were arrested or the day before, when they were

seen together in a car, following a potential robbery victim from the casino.

       {¶40} Based on the foregoing, we hold that the common pleas court abused its

discretion in determining that the statements in Erkins’s and Tanks’s affidavits failed

to disclose a strong probability of a different result if a new trial is granted on the

offense of the aggravated robbery of Duncan. Accordingly, we reverse the lower court’s

judgment with respect to that count and remand the matter for a new trial on that

count only.

                                         Dao Robbery

       {¶41} Turning to Dao’s aggravated robbery, Dao and his neighbor both

testified that two men had robbed him at gunpoint upon his return home from the

casino. These facts comport with the footprint of Ojile and Erkins’s other robberies.

There was also video surveillance showing Erkins following Dao at the casino. In

arguing for a new trial on this count, Ojile points first to Erkins’s affidavit, in which

Erkins claims that Dao’s identification documents were in the glove box of his car and

that he was shocked when he heard testimony at trial that Dao’s documents were

found in Ojile’s apartment. Next, Ojile points to Tanks’s affidavit, in which he attests

that Ojile had not confessed involvement in this crime but had merely told Tanks that

                                               14
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

he believed officers planted Dao’s license in his apartment. But this evidence fails to

disclose a strong probability of a different result if a new trial were granted.

       {¶42} First, Erkins did not specifically attest to Ojile’s innocence in this crime

(and this comports with Dao’s testimony that he was robbed by two men). Rather,

Erkins only attested that Dao’s documents had been in Erkins’s glove box and

therefore, officers must have planted Dao’s driver’s license and other items in Ojile’s

apartment. Second, Erkins’s admission that Dao’s documents were in his glove box

merely contradicts the police officer’s testimony at trial that Dao’s driver’s license had

been found in Ojile’s apartment on top of a kitchen cabinet, where Ojile’s girlfriend

testified that he normally kept his wallet and keys. Accordingly, we cannot say that the

common pleas court abused its discretion in denying Ojile a new trial on this count.

                                   Racheria Robbery

       {¶43} Ojile submits Erkins’s affidavit only (Tanks did not testify about this

crime at trial) to support his motion for a new trial involving his conviction for

conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. Although Erkins has now admitted to

robbing Racheria, which is in line with his recent admission that he had stolen

Duncan’s gun, his new testimony does not change the fact that this robbery fit the

footprint of his and Ojile’s other convictions. There was surveillance video showing

Erkins following Racheria out of the casino and cell phone data placing Ojile in the

Blue Ash area at the time of the crime. Given this other evidence, Erkins’s admission

that he had robbed Racheria does not disclose a strong probability of a different result

if a new trial were granted. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Ojile’s motion for a new trial on this count.

       {¶44} Based on the foregoing, we sustain in part and overrule in part Ojile’s
single assignment of error.

                                               15
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

                                      Conclusion

       {¶45} Because we hold that the lower court abused its discretion in denying

Ojile’s motion for a new trial with respect to the count related to the aggravated robbery

of Daniel Duncan, we reverse the common pleas court’s judgment in part and remand

the cause for a new trial on that count only. We affirm the lower court’s judgment in all

other respects.

                    Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.

BERGERON, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., concur.

Please note:

       The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                               16