Court Opinion

ID: 9929980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-05 20:08:59.323016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:01:57.045565
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Williams, 2024-Ohio-401.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                     CASE NO. 2023-T-0021

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                   Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                     Court of Common Pleas

OMAR S. WILLIAMS,
                                                   Trial Court No. 2022 CR 00427
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                              OPINION

                                      Decided: February 5, 2024
                                        Judgment: Affirmed

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH
44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Robert T. McDowall, Jr., Robert T. McDowall Co, LLC, 415 Wyndclift Place,
Youngstown, OH 44515 (For Defendant-Appellant).

MATT LYNCH, J.

        {¶1}     Defendant-appellant, Omar S. Williams, appeals from his conviction for

Aggravated Robbery in the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas. For the following

reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.

        {¶2}     On June 28, 2022, Williams was indicted by the Trumbull County Grand

Jury for Aggravated Robbery, a felony of the second degree, in violation of R.C.

2911.01(A)(3); Felonious Assault, a felony of the second degree, in violation of R.C.

2903.11(A)(1); Abduction, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2);
Disrupting Public Services, a felony of the fourth degree, in violation of R.C.

2909.04(A)(1); and Domestic Violence, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of

R.C. 2919.25(A). The first two counts included repeat violent offender specifications

under R.C. 2941.149.

      {¶3}   A jury trial was held on February 21 and 22, 2023. The following pertinent

testimony and evidence were presented:

      {¶4}   Michelle Weimer testified that on May 17, 2022, Williams, her boyfriend,

was living with her. On the morning of May 17, as she was leaving to take her children

to school, Williams made a comment about her not saying goodbye and began choking

her. He then told her to give him a ride and she planned to drop him off at his uncle’s

house. As she began driving there, Williams told her to take the children to school first,

stating “you’re going to wish you dropped these kids off.”

      {¶5}   Weimer testified that she returned the children to her house and began

driving to the uncle’s residence. During that time, Williams took her cell phone from her

and started looking through it, noticing that her daughter was texting her. He told Weimer

to tell her daughter she was ok and stated: “if I don’t, he is going to pick her up and tie

her up and she’s going to watch him kill me.” She spoke to her daughter and Williams

then again took her phone away from her. While she continued to drive toward Warren

from Austintown, he saw a specific message on her phone and then hit her.

      {¶6}   According to Weimer, when she neared his uncle’s residence in Warren, he

stated that they were not going there, and said: “You’re not going home, * * * your kids

are going to be orphans.” She drove him to his workplace to run an errand. She then

took him to an ATM. He exited the vehicle, taking her keys and phone, and attempted to

                                            2

Case No. 2023-T-0021
use the ATM, which was out of order. She then drove him to the Cortland Walmart to use

an ATM inside. When they arrived at the Walmart, he told her to go inside with him. He

demanded she give him her keys “’cause you’re not leaving me.” She handed him the

keys, they walked in together, and he told her “not to do nothing dumb.” Weimer testified

that while Williams was using the ATM, she located a Walmart employee, Heather

Talkington. Weimer told Talkington her boyfriend had been beating her and asked her to

call 911. Talkington attempted to hide her from Williams. Williams then saw Weimer and

Weimer began to run. Talkington yelled for help and told Williams to leave Weimer alone.

Weimer heard Talkington hit something and scream.          Another Walmart worker told

Williams to leave and pushed him. Weimer told him not to take her vehicle but he left,

taking her car.

       {¶7}   Heather Talkington testified that, while she was working at Walmart,

Weimer approached her and looked terrified. According to Talkington, Weimer told her

that her boyfriend had been beating her in the parking lot. She told Weimer to lock herself

in the bathroom and yelled for help. Talkington stated that Williams came up behind her

but she did not remember what happened after that point. Surveillance video shows

Williams running across the store toward Weimer and Talkington and Talkington noted

that the video showed she hit a skid. As a result of the incident, Talkington’s suffered

injuries to her head, neck, and liver, and was hospitalized for two weeks. She has not

been able to work since that time.

       {¶8}   Sergeant Jake Abbott of the Bazetta Police Department responded to the

scene and was advised by Weimer that it involved “a domestic situation that has been

occurring since the early morning.” She had scratch marks and a “red print” on her neck,

                                            3

Case No. 2023-T-0021
as well as blood around her lip and bleeding near her fingernails.

       {¶9}    The jury found Williams guilty of the offenses as charged in the indictment

and the court found him to be a repeat violent offender. The court sentenced Williams to

an aggregate prison sentence of 33 to 38 and one-half years.

       {¶10} Williams timely appeals and raises the following assignment of error:

       {¶11} “The State of Ohio failed to present sufficient evidence [that] defendant-

appellant, Omar Williams[’], infliction of serious physical harm to the victim occurred while

he was committing a theft offense or was fleeing immediately after the commission of the

theft offense.”

       {¶12} Williams argues that his conviction for Aggravated Robbery was not

supported by sufficient evidence since the injuries inflicted on Talkington did not occur

while Williams was committing a theft offense.

       {¶13} A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence raises the issue of “whether

the evidence is legally sufficient to support the jury verdict as a matter of law.” State v.

Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422, 2017-Ohio-9423, 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 165; Crim.R. 29(A) (“[t]he

court * * * shall order the entry of a judgment of acquittal * * * if the evidence is insufficient

to sustain a conviction”). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “[t]he relevant

inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution,

any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven

beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991),

paragraph two of the syllabus. “Whether there is legally sufficient evidence to sustain a

conviction is a question of law that this court reviews de novo.” State v. Smith, 167 Ohio

St.3d 220, 2022-Ohio-269, 191 N.E.3d 418, ¶ 5.

                                                4

Case No. 2023-T-0021
       {¶14} Williams was convicted of Aggravated Robbery under R.C. 2911.01(A)(3),

which provides: “No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense, as defined

in section 2913.01 of the Revised Code, or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or

offense, shall do any of the following: * * * Inflict, or attempt to inflict, serious physical

harm on another.” A theft offense is defined under R.C. 2913.01(K) as a violation of

various sections of the Revised Code or municipal ordinances. A theft offense occurs

under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) when a person, “with purpose to deprive the owner of property

* * *, [does] knowingly obtain or exert control over * * * property * * * [w]ithout the consent

of the owner” or by threat or intimidation.

       {¶15} Williams does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to his other

convictions but argues that the Aggravated Robbery conviction must be reversed. He

contends that the offense of Aggravated Robbery requires that harm be inflicted while

“committing” a theft offense and that this “contemplates an act of theft done

contemporaneously with the inflicting of serious injuries.”

       {¶16} As noted above, to commit an Aggravated Robbery under the pertinent

section, the defendant must, “in attempting or committing a theft offense,” or while in

fleeing immediately thereafter, inflict or attempt to inflict serious physical harm on another.

In determining the meaning of the phrase “in attempting or committing a theft offense,” it

has been held that the use of force in robbery or aggravated robbery offenses must be

“contemporaneous to that theft offense.” State v. Calhoun, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

59369, 1991 WL 251673, *2 (Nov. 27, 1991); State v. Tyus, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.

108270, 2020-Ohio-103, ¶ 10. Here, there are two acts of theft that the State alleged

occurred in conjunction with the assault of Talkington: the theft of Weimer’s phone prior

                                              5

Case No. 2023-T-0021
to the assault and the theft of Weimer’s vehicle. We will first address the theft of the

phone.

       {¶17} In State v. Madera, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93764, 2010-Ohio-4884, two

men were arguing and the defendant then took money that the victim threw on the ground.

After this act, the men sat on the couch for a short period of time, began arguing again,

and a physical brawl ensued. The court determined that “the lapse in time between the

theft and the use of force * * * is sufficient to justify reversal of Madera’s convictions for

aggravated robbery,” as there was “enough delay between the two actions that they could

not be considered contemporaneous.” Id. at ¶ 23. See also State v. Griggs, 8th Dist.

Cuyahoga No. 97284, 2012-Ohio-1837, ¶ 13 (where the defendant used force against the

victim, an ex-girlfriend, by grabbing her and then subsequently took her phone, the court

concluded that a robbery offense did not occur because “the force needed to hold [the

victim] did not coincide with the taking of the cell phone”). Similarly, in the present matter,

there is no question that Williams took Weimer’s phone from her possession, there was

a lapse in time during which they drove to multiple locations (the length of which is not

entirely clear from the record), and Talkington was later injured after the pair entered

Walmart and when Williams was chasing Weimer and Talkington. The theft of the phone

had been completed at a separate time and location than the incident where Talkington

was injured and the injury did not occur in relation to the theft.

       {¶18} However, we find that the theft of the vehicle constituted a theft act which

supported Williams’ conviction for Aggravated Robbery, as the assault occurred while he

was carrying out that theft offense and was part of a continuing course of conduct

involving the vehicle theft.

                                              6

Case No. 2023-T-0021
       {¶19} The State argues that “a review of the record * * * demonstrates Appellant’s

actions causing [Talkington’s] serious physical injuries were an accumulation of

Appellant’s ‘one continuous occurrence,’ or continuing course of conduct.” In support, it

cites authority on this issue which has been applied in the context of felony murder cases.

In State v. Johnson, 112 Ohio St.3d 210, 2006-Ohio-6404, 858 N.E.2d 1144, the Ohio

Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a defendant committed a Rape and

Aggravated Robbery “while committing” aggravated murder under the felony murder

statute. Id. at ¶ 54. It found that the term “while” does not indicate that the killing must

occur “at the same instant” as the predicate felony or that the killing must have been

caused by the felony. Id. at ¶ 55. It concluded that “the killing must be directly associated

with the [felony] as part of one continuous occurrence” and that the death may occur

leading up to, during, or immediately subsequent to the felony. (Citation omitted.) Id. at

¶ 56. Similarly, in State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426, 678 N.E.2d 891 (1997), the Supreme

Court concluded that the theft of a ring was associated with the killing as part of one

continuous occurrence where a defendant killed the victim, dragged her corpse into the

woods, and stole the ring from her finger while moving the body. Id. at 450. It concluded

that appellant could not “escape the effect of the felony-murder rule by claiming that the

aggravated robbery was simply an afterthought,” observed that a “victim of a robbery,

killed just prior to the robber’s carrying off her property, is nonetheless the victim of an

aggravated robbery,” and noted that “[t]he victim need not be alive at the time of

asportation.” Id. at 451, citing State v. Smith, 61 Ohio St.3d 284, 290, 574 N.E.2d 510

(1991). See also State v. Roberts, 110 Ohio St.3d 71, 2006-Ohio-3665, 850 N.E.2d 1168,

¶ 129 (“[w]e repeatedly have rejected the argument that there is no aggravated robbery

                                             7

Case No. 2023-T-0021
when the victim’s property is taken after he is murdered”).

       {¶20} While the foregoing cases relate to felony murder, courts in Ohio have

applied this “continuous occurrence” analysis to Aggravated Robbery charges unrelated

to felony murder. In determining whether an aggravated robbery was supported by the

weight of the evidence, the Second District considered the foregoing authority and

observed that whether the act of pointing a gun and committing a theft of speakers

“amounted to ‘one continuous occurrence’” was a question for the jury. It found there was

sufficient evidence that pointing the gun at the victim provided the defendant the

opportunity to steal the speakers and the act of pointing the gun was not removed in time

from the theft. State v. Engle, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22934, 2009-Ohio-4787, ¶ 21.

See State v. Dunning, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 75869, 2000 WL 301007, *3 (Mar. 23,

2000) (considering whether a struggle outside of a store after a theft was part of a “single

continuous transaction” for the purposes of the offense of aggravated robbery).

       {¶21} Here, Williams’ theft of the vehicle began at the time he ordered Weimer to

provide him the keys to her vehicle, which occurred while he was still engaged in the act

of abducting her. Immediately after taking possession of the keys, the two entered

Walmart. Within a matter of minutes, Williams chased after Talkington and Weimer, which

resulted in the serious injuries Talkington suffered.      Shortly thereafter, following a

confrontation with another Walmart employee, Williams exited the store and drove away

in Weimer’s vehicle, despite her requests that he not do so. The assault occurred while

the theft was ongoing, which constituted inflicting serious physical harm “in * * *

committing a theft offense,” as required by the statute. R.C. 2911.01(A)(3). Even if the

assault did not occur immediately at the moment the keys were taken or when the vehicle

                                             8

Case No. 2023-T-0021
was driven away, the acts committed were one continuous occurrence, with the assault

occurring while Williams was still engaged in the act of taking the vehicle. Committing an

assault during an ongoing theft has been found sufficient to support a conviction for

aggravated robbery. See State v. Claytor, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110837, 2022-Ohio-

1938, ¶ 63-64 (holding there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the essential

elements of aggravated robbery when attempted theft of money from the state for an

unemployment claim was “ongoing” and an assault occurred over attempted theft of a

share of the fraudulent unemployment claim). As has been indicated in evaluating similar

circumstances, the jury is in the best position to determine whether specific acts

amounted to “one continuous occurrence.” Engle at ¶ 21. We do not find that there was

insufficient evidence to submit this issue to the jury for a determination of whether

Williams committed Aggravated Robbery.

       {¶22} We briefly note Williams’ arguments that the State failed to demonstrate that

the injuries were inflicted in fleeing immediately after a theft or attempted theft. Typically,

findings that a defendant inflicted harm while “immediately fleeing” from a theft act occur

in scenarios where there is a close temporal connection between the theft and the

infliction of injury. Commonly, such a conclusion is reached where a defendant assaults

employees or security personnel who intervene in a shoplifting incident, either when the

theft has just occurred or during the pursuit of the defendant upon detecting the theft.

See In re Mills, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2001-A-0028, 2002-Ohio-3125, ¶ 22, rev’d on

other grounds 97 Ohio St.3d 432, 2002-Ohio-6670, 780 N.E.2d 281 (“where a defendant

struggles with store security guards outside a store immediately after a theft in an effort

to escape apprehension, such conduct * * * is sufficient to establish the force element of

                                              9

Case No. 2023-T-0021
robbery”) (citation omitted); State v. Brown, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2013-L-120, 2014-Ohio-

5702, ¶ 5-6, 18.    In such matters, it has been determined that the defendant was

immediately fleeing the theft act. In the present matter, the assault occurred while the

theft was ongoing. Regardless, it is unnecessary to make such a determination since it

is only necessary to decide whether harm was inflicted “in attempting or committing a

theft offense * * * or while in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense,” not that

both elements were satisfied. (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2911.01(A)(3).

      {¶23} The sole assignment of error is without merit.

      {¶24} For the foregoing reasons, Williams’ conviction for Aggravated Robbery in

the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against

appellant.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

                                            10

Case No. 2023-T-0021