Court Opinion

ID: 9943008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 16:12:12.03049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:49.419190
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Ellison, 2024-Ohio-655.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                              SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                  MAHONING COUNTY

                                             STATE OF OHIO,

                                             Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                                     v.

                                             KEITH ELLISON,

                                         Defendant-Appellant.

                         OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                             Case No. 23 MA 0035

                                    Criminal Appeal from the
                        Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio
                                    Case No. 2021 CR 703A

                                            BEFORE:
            William A. Klatt, Retired Judge of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
                                     Sitting by Assignment,
                          Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.

                                                JUDGMENT:
                                                  Affirmed.

 Atty. Gina DeGenova, Mahoning County Prosecutor, and Atty. Ralph M. Rivera,
 Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee and

 Atty. Ronald D. Yarwood, DeGenova & Yarwood, Ltd., for Defendant-Appellant.

                                        Dated: February 21, 2024
                                                                                                   -2-

 KLATT, J.

                 Appellant, Keith Ellison, appeals from the February 2, 2023 judgment and
the February 6, 2023 amended judgment of the Mahoning County Court of Common
Pleas. Following a trial by jury, Appellant was found guilty of kidnapping, abduction,
robbery, and assault. The trial court sentenced him to three years (minimum) to four and
one-half years (maximum) in prison.1 On appeal, Appellant raises arguments involving
sufficiency of the evidence, manifest weight, and cumulative error doctrine. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.

                              FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

                 On November 18, 2021, Appellant and his co-defendants, Undrel Fletcher
(“Fletcher”), Kyle Ellison (“Kyle”), and Anthony Ellison (“Anthony”), were indicted by the
Mahoning County Grand Jury on eight counts:2 count one (all defendants), kidnapping,
a felony of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(1), (2), (3) and (C)(1), with a
firearm specification; count two (all defendants), abduction, a felony of the third degree in
violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(1), (2) and (C), with a firearm specification; count three (all
defendants), aggravated robbery, a felony of the first degree in violation of R.C.
2911.01(A)(3) and (C), with a firearm specification; count four (all defendants), robbery,
a felony of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) and (B), with a firearm
specification; count five (all defendants), felonious assault, a felony of the second degree
in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A) and (D)(1)(a), with a firearm specification; count six (all
defendants), assault, a misdemeanor of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A)
and (C); count seven (Kyle only), having weapons while under disability, a felony of the
third degree in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2) and (B); and count eight (Anthony only),
having weapons while under disability, a felony of the third degree in violation of R.C.
2923.13(A)(2) and (B). Appellant retained counsel, pled not guilty at his arraignment, and
waived his right to a speedy trial.

1 Am. Sub. S.B. No. 201, 2018 Ohio Laws 157, known as the “Reagan Tokes Law,” significantly altered the

sentencing structure for many of Ohio’s most serious felonies by implementing an indefinite sentencing
system for those non-life felonies of the first and second degree, committed on or after March 22, 2019.

2 Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony (or collectively “the Ellisons”) are brothers.

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                                        -3-

                A trial by jury involving Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony commenced on
November 28, 2022.3
                Appellee, the State of Ohio, presented seven witnesses: (1) Alex Wharry
(“Officer Wharry”), an officer with Youngstown Police Department (“YPD”); (2) John
O’Neill (“Officer O’Neill”), an officer with YPD; (3) Jason Smith (“Paramedic Smith”), a
paramedic with AMR Ambulance; (4) Billy Hall, Jr. (“Billy”), the victim, who revealed that
the defendants were friends of his brother, Jonah Hall; (5) Jonah Hall (“Jonah”), who
indicated he was friends with the defendants; (6) Fletcher, who made a deal with the State
to testify against the defendants; and (7) Michael Cox (“Detective Cox”), a detective with
YPD.
                Billy met Fletcher when they were in middle school. (11/28/2022 Trial by
Jury Tr., p. 336). Billy later met Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony through his brother, Jonah.
(Id.)
                On October 5, 2021, Billy was playing Call of Duty with his neighbor, Aliyah.
(Id. at p. 338-339). After the game, Billy walked her home. (Id. at p. 339). A red Chrysler
300 with black wheels and tinted windows stopped in front of Billy’s house. (Id. at p. 340-
341). Appellant exited the vehicle, approached Billy, and “shoved [him] into the car[.]”
(Id. at p. 343). Also inside the vehicle were Kyle and Fletcher. (Id. at p. 343-344).
                Appellant drove them to their house on Neilson Avenue. (Id. at p. 345).
Kyle sat in the front passenger’s seat and Fletcher sat in the backseat next to Billy. (Id.)
Billy said that Appellant and Kyle were yelling about something. (Id. at p. 345-347). Once
they arrived at the house, Appellant and Anthony pulled Billy from the vehicle. (Id. at p.
346). Billy “started getting beaten on and punched and brutally hurt.” (Id.) Billy tried to
flee but ended up falling. (Id. at p. 347). Billy said Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony all
assaulted him while Fletcher watched. (Id. at p. 396).
                Billy observed a handgun pointed at his head and the man holding it said,
“I need my money.” (Id. at p. 348-349). Billy was struck with “[a] fist and a gun in [his]
face.” (Id. at p. 353). Billy said they struck him with the gun on his face, head, and lower
back. (Id.) Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony were present and they went through Billy’s

3 On November 30, 2022, Kyle filed a waiver and relinquishment of his right to a trial by jury on count seven

(having weapons while under disability).

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                       -4-

pockets looking for money while continuing to assault him. (Id. at p. 347-350). They
eventually drove Billy back to his house on Loveland Road. (Id. at p. 351). En route, they
continued assaulting him. (Id. at p. 350-352). When they arrived, Billy’s brother, Jonah,
came outside. (Id. at p. 352). Appellant told Jonah what was going on before the men
fled the scene. (Id. at p. 354).
               Billy testified that Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony claimed he took $300 or
$300 worth of marijuana from them. (Id. at p. 391). Appellant said to Billy, “why would
you steal from me, I treat you like family.” (Id. at p. 379-380). Billy denies stealing
anything. (Id. at p. 381).
               Fletcher agreed to testify against Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony and the
State agreed to recommend a community control sanction. (Id. at p. 447-448).
               After Fletcher was arrested, he spoke with Detective Cox. (Id. at p. 449-
450). Fletcher met Billy in elementary school. (Id. at p. 451). Fletcher met Jonah through
his friendship with Billy and later met Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony through Jonah. (Id. at
p. 452-453).
               On the day at issue, Fletcher walked to a nearby gas station. (Id. at p. 453-
454). Fletcher saw Appellant in his red Chrysler 300 and asked him for a ride. (Id. at p.
455). Appellant drove Fletcher to the gas station then to Billy’s house. (Id. at p. 456).
Kyle was also present in the vehicle. (Id.) Fletcher said Appellant or Kyle told him they
were going to Billy’s house to get their money back. (Id.) After they arrived, Appellant
and Kyle forced Billy into the backseat while hitting and kicking him. (Id. at p. 459).
Fletcher remained in the vehicle. (Id. at p. 458). Appellant said to Billy, “you better have
my money.” (Id. at p. 460). Appellant drove them back to his house a few blocks away.
(Id. at p. 461).
               At the Ellisons’ house on Neilson, Appellant and Kyle pulled Billy from the
vehicle and Anthony came outside and met them. (Id. at p. 462). Appellant, Kyle, and
Anthony began assaulting Billy. (Id. at p. 465). Fletcher said Appellant went through
Billy’s pockets and Fletcher observed Kyle with a Glock handgun. (Id. at p. 462, 466).
Fletcher stated that the Ellisons said to Billy, “You stole money, I need my money back.”
(Id. at p. 473). Fletcher testified that Billy tried to run away but Appellant, Kyle, and
Anthony grabbed Billy, assaulted him, and threw him back in the vehicle. (Id. at p. 467).

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                         -5-

Inside the car, Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony continued to assault Billy. (Id. at p. 468-469).
When they arrived back at Billy’s house, Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony “beat [Billy] up
some more in the yard[.]” (Id. at p. 469).
               Fletcher denied touching or assaulting Billy and denied that he assisted in
setting up the assault. (Id. at p. 459, 469-470, 496-497). Fletcher did say, however, that
he sent Appellant a text message prior to the incident telling him that Billy stole from him.
(Id. at p. 512).
               Billy’s brother, Jonah, testified he was outside and saw Appellant, Kyle, and
Anthony exit the red Chrysler 300 and pull Billy from the backseat. (Id. at p. 410). Jonah
saw Anthony punch Billy’s face. (Id. at p. 411). Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony began
yelling at Jonah. (Id. at p. 412). Kyle told Jonah that Billy stole money and marijuana.
(Id.) Appellant asked Jonah where the money was. (Id.) Later that afternoon, Jonah
asked Appellant via text message how much Billy owed. (Id. at p. 418-419). Appellant
indicated, “$300,” along with threats and vulgarities. (Id. at p. 419-423).
               Officer Wharry responded to Loveland Road. (Id. at p. 244). He observed
Billy “in the driveway without a shirt on and he wasn’t wearing any shoes; kind of beat
up.” (Id. at p. 245). Officer Wharry also observed Billy “had a bloody lip, cuts, scrapes,
[on his] face, shoulders, arms.” (Id.) Officer Wharry described Billy’s demeanor as, “pretty
excited, pretty worked up, pacing [b]ack and forth. Visibly upset[.]” (Id.) Billy told Officer
Wharry “that he was forced into a car and physically assaulted.” (Id. at p. 246). Billy said
the vehicle was a red Chrysler 300 and his friend, “Keith,” was responsible for his injuries.
(Id. at p. 246-248). Billy indicated that Appellant, Kyle, Anthony, Fletcher, and Myia
Williams were there. (Id. at p. 257-258, 263).
               Officer O’Neill also responded and encountered Billy. (Id. at p. 272-273).
Officer O’Neill stated Billy was bare-chested; had several injuries to his head and face;
had wounds on his head, chest, and back; and his head was bleeding. (Id. at p. 273-
274). Billy told the officers that “he was taken to a car by people that he knew and he had
something that was owed and they ended up beating him up in the vehicle and then
bringing him back to 3533 Loveland.” (Id. at p. 276). Billy said he was put in the suspects’
vehicle “unwillingly.” (Id.)

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                        -6-

              Paramedic Smith treated Billy’s injuries. (Id. at p. 302, 306). He described
Billy’s demeanor as “[v]ery animated,” “[u]pset,” “[m]oving around.” (Id. at p. 306). Billy
had “abrasions to his face, his forehead, to his back and small laceration above his left
buttock.” (Id.) A cervical collar was placed around Billy’s neck because he had multiple
injuries to his head. (Id. at p. 309). Billy told Paramedic Smith “that he was abducted and
struck multiple times by assailants; did not say with what or by who.” (Id. at p. 308). Billy
was taken to the hospital via ambulance for treatment. (Id. at p. 279).
              Detective Cox conducted an investigation. (Id. at p. 540). On October 7,
2021, Detective Cox spoke with Billy and Jonah at the police station. (Id. at p. 541).
Detective Cox observed Billy’s injuries during the interview. (Id. at p. 575). After speaking
with them, the suspects included Appellant, Kyle, Anthony, and Fletcher. (Id. at p. 542).
Through the investigation, Detective Cox learned that Kyle shared a news article on
Facebook that referenced the incident involving Billy. (Id. at p. 545). Kyle posted on
Facebook, “niggas ain’t playing bout dat pape, with three cry - - laughing to the point of
crying emojies.” (Id. at p. 546, 618-619). Detective Cox explained that “pape” is a slang
term for paper money. (Id.) One of the photographs found on Kyle’s Facebook page
shows Kyle with a firearm.       (Id. at p. 568-569).    That firearm matches Fletcher’s
description of the firearm used in this incident. (Id. at p. 616). Fletcher described the gun
as “a desert tan brown,” and thought it was a Glock. (Id. at p. 611).
              At the conclusion of the State’s case, Appellant moved for an acquittal
pursuant to Crim.R. 29, which was overruled by the trial court. The defense rested
without presenting evidence. Appellant’s renewed motion for judgment of acquittal was
overruled.
              The jury found Appellant guilty on count one (kidnapping), count two
(abduction), count four (robbery), and count six (assault). The jury found Appellant not
guilty on count three (aggravated robbery), count five (felonious assault), and on all of the
firearm specifications.
              On December 21, 2022, the trial court entered judgment on the verdicts,
deferred sentencing, and ordered a pre-sentence investigation.
              On February 2, 2023, following a sentencing hearing, the trial court
sentenced Appellant to three years (minimum) to four and one-half years (maximum) on

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                                      -7-

count one (kidnapping), two years (minimum) to three years (maximum) on count four
(robbery), and six months on count six (assault). The court imposed the sentences
concurrently. The court merged count two (abduction) into count one (kidnapping) upon
the State’s election. The court further notified Appellant that he is subject to mandatory
post-release control for a period of up to five years but not less than two years.4
                Appellant filed a timely appeal and raises five assignments of error.

                                ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1

        THE CONVICTION FOR ROBBERY WAS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT
        EVIDENCE AS THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE A “THEFT” AS
        REQUIRED BY STATUTE.

                                ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2

        THE CONVICTION FOR ROBBERY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
        WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS THE STATE FAILED TO PROVE A
        “THEFT” AS REQUIRED BY STATUTE.

                                ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3

        THE CONVICTION FOR KIDNAPPING WAS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT
        EVIDENCE AS THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING FELONY OFFENSE OR
        INFLICTION OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM.

                                ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4

        THE CONVICTION FOR KIDNAPPING WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST
        WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AS THERE WAS NO UNDERLYING
        FELONY OFFENSE OR INFLICTION OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM.

                In his first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error, Appellant argues
his convictions for kidnapping and robbery are not supported by sufficient evidence and

4 On February 6, 2023, the trial court filed an amended judgment entry adding the degree of felony in count

four.

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                       -8-

are against the manifest weight of the evidence. For ease of discussion, because these
assignments are interrelated, we will consider them in a consolidated fashion.

      “When a court reviews a record for sufficiency, ‘(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.
      Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, 9 N.E.3d 930, ¶ 146, quoting
      State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991), paragraph two
      of the syllabus; Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d
      560 (1979).

      In determining whether a criminal conviction is against the manifest weight
      of the evidence, an Appellate court must review the entire record, weigh the
      evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of
      witnesses, and determine 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. Thompkins, 78 Ohio
      St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997); State v. Hunter, 131 Ohio St.3d 67,
      2011-Ohio-6524, 960 N.E.2d 955, ¶ 119.* * *

      The weight to be given to the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses
      are nonetheless issues for the trier of fact. State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d
      230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967). The trier of fact “has the best opportunity to
      view the demeanor, attitude, and credibility of each witness, something that
      does not translate well on the written page.” Davis v. Flickinger, 77 Ohio
      St.3d 415, 418, 674 N.E.2d 1159 (1997).

State v. T.D.J., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 16 MA 0104, 2018-Ohio-2766, ¶ 46-48.

             “‘(C)ircumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the
same probative value.’” State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426, 447, 678 N.E.2d 891 (1997),
quoting Jenks, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus.

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                           -9-

              For the reasons addressed below, we determine the judgment is not against
the manifest weight of the evidence and further conclude it is supported by sufficient
evidence.
              Appellant takes issue with the guilty findings for kidnapping and robbery.
              Count one, kidnapping, a felony of the first degree in violation of R.C.
2905.01, states in part:

       (A) No person, by force, threat, or deception * * * shall remove another from
       the place where the other person is found or restrain the liberty of the other
       person, for any of the following purposes:

       (1) To hold for ransom, or as a shield or hostage;

       (2) To facilitate the commission of any felony or flight thereafter;

       (3) To terrorize, or to inflict serious physical harm on the victim or another;

       ***

       (C)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of kidnapping. * * *

R.C. 2905.01(A)(1), (2), (3), and (C)(1).

              Count four, robbery, a felony of the second degree in violation of R.C.
2911.02, states in part:

       (A) No person, in attempting or committing a theft offense or in fleeing
       immediately after the attempt or offense, shall do any of the following:

       ***

       (2) Inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten to inflict physical harm on another;

       ***

       (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of robbery. * * *

R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) and (B).

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                       - 10 -

              As stated, on October 5, 2021, a red Chrysler 300 stopped in front of Billy’s
house.    (11/28/2022 Trial by Jury Tr., p. 340-341).        Appellant exited the vehicle,
approached Billy, and “shoved [him] into the car[.]” (Id. at p. 343). Also inside the vehicle
were Kyle and Fletcher. (Id. at p. 343-344).
              Appellant drove them to their house on Neilson Avenue. (Id. at p. 345).
Kyle sat in the front passenger’s seat and Fletcher sat in the backseat next to Billy. (Id.)
Billy said that Appellant and Kyle were yelling about something. (Id. at p. 345-347). Once
they arrived at the house, Appellant and Anthony pulled Billy from the vehicle. (Id. at p.
346). Billy “started getting beaten on and punched and brutally hurt.” (Id.) Billy tried to
flee but ended up falling. (Id. at p. 347). Billy said Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony all
assaulted him while Fletcher watched. (Id. at p. 396).
              Billy observed a handgun pointed at his head and the man holding it said,
“I need my money.” (Id. at p. 348-349). Billy was struck with “[a] fist and a gun in [his]
face.” (Id. at p. 353). Billy said they struck him with the gun on his face, head, and lower
back. (Id.) Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony were present and they went through Billy’s
pockets looking for money while continuing to assault him. (Id. at p. 347-350). They
eventually drove Billy back to his house on Loveland. (Id. at p. 351). En route, they
continued assaulting him. (Id. at p. 350-352). When they arrived, Billy’s brother, Jonah,
came outside. (Id. at p. 352). Appellant told Jonah what was going on before the men
fled the scene. (Id. at p. 354).
              Billy testified that Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony claimed he took $300 or
$300 worth of marijuana from them. (Id. at p. 391). Appellant said to Billy, “why would
you steal from me, I treat you like family.” (Id. at p. 379-380). Billy denies stealing
anything. (Id. at p. 381).
              After Fletcher was arrested, he spoke with Detective Cox. (Id. at p. 449-
450). On the day at issue, Fletcher walked to a nearby gas station. (Id. at p. 453-454).
Fletcher saw Appellant in his red Chrysler 300 and asked him for a ride. (Id. at p. 455).
Appellant drove Fletcher to the gas station then to Billy’s house. (Id. at p. 456). Kyle was
also present in the vehicle. (Id.) Fletcher said Appellant or Kyle told him they were going
to Billy’s house to get their money back. (Id.) After they arrived, Appellant and Kyle
forced Billy into the backseat while hitting and kicking him. (Id. at p. 459). Fletcher

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                        - 11 -

remained in the vehicle. (Id. at p. 458). Appellant said to Billy, “you better have my
money.” (Id. at p. 460). Appellant drove them back to his house a few blocks away. (Id.
at p. 461).
              At the Ellisons’ house on Neilson, Appellant and Kyle pulled Billy from the
vehicle and Anthony came outside and met them. (Id. at p. 462). Appellant, Kyle, and
Anthony began assaulting Billy. (Id. at p. 465). Fletcher said Appellant went through
Billy’s pockets and Fletcher observed Kyle with a Glock handgun. (Id. at p. 462, 466).
Fletcher stated that the Ellisons said to Billy, “You stole money, I need my money back.”
(Id. at p. 473). Fletcher testified that Billy tried to run away but Appellant, Kyle, and
Anthony grabbed Billy, assaulted him, and threw him back in the vehicle. (Id. at p. 467).
Inside the car, Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony continued to assault Billy. (Id. at p. 468-469).
When they arrived back at Billy’s house, Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony “beat [Billy] up
some more in the yard[.]” (Id. at p. 469).
              Billy’s brother, Jonah, testified he was outside and saw Appellant, Kyle, and
Anthony exit the red Chrysler 300 and pull Billy from the backseat. (Id. at p. 410). Jonah
saw Anthony punch Billy’s face. (Id. at p. 411). Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony began
yelling at Jonah. (Id. at p. 412). Kyle told Jonah that Billy stole money and marijuana.
(Id.) Appellant asked Jonah where the money was. (Id.) Later that afternoon, Jonah
asked Appellant via text message how much Billy owed. (Id. at p. 418-419). Appellant
indicated, “$300,” along with threats and vulgarities. (Id. at p. 419-423).
              Officer Wharry responded to Loveland Road. (Id. at p. 244). He observed
Billy “in the driveway without a shirt on and he wasn’t wearing any shoes; kind of beat
up.” (Id. at p. 245). Officer Wharry also observed Billy “had a bloody lip, cuts, scrapes,
[on his] face, shoulders, arms.” (Id.) Officer Wharry described Billy’s demeanor as, “pretty
excited, pretty worked up, pacing [b]ack and forth. Visibly upset[.]” (Id.) Billy told Officer
Wharry “that he was forced into a car and physically assaulted.” (Id. at p. 246). Billy said
the vehicle was a red Chrysler 300 and his friend, “Keith,” was responsible for his injuries.
(Id. at p. 246-248). Billy indicated that Appellant, Kyle, Anthony, Fletcher, and Myia
Williams were there. (Id. at p. 257-258, 263).
              Officer O’Neill also responded and encountered Billy. (Id. at p. 272-273).
Officer O’Neill stated Billy was bare-chested; had several injuries to his head and face;

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                       - 12 -

had wounds on his head, chest, and back; and his head was bleeding. (Id. at p. 273-
274). Billy told the officers that “he was taken to a car by people that he knew and he had
something that was owed and they ended up beating him up in the vehicle and then
bringing him back to 3533 Loveland.” (Id. at p. 276). Billy said he was put in the suspects’
vehicle “unwillingly.” (Id.)
              Paramedic Smith treated Billy’s injuries. (Id. at p. 302, 306). He described
Billy’s demeanor as “[v]ery animated,” “[u]pset,” “[m]oving around.” (Id. at p. 306). Billy
had “abrasions to his face, his forehead, to his back and small laceration above his left
buttock.” (Id.) A cervical collar was placed around Billy’s neck because he had multiple
injuries to his head. (Id. at p. 309). Billy told Paramedic Smith “that he was abducted and
struck multiple times by assailants; did not say with what or by who.” (Id. at p. 308). Billy
was taken to the hospital via ambulance for treatment. (Id. at p. 279).
              Detective Cox conducted an investigation. (Id. at p. 540). On October 7,
2021, Detective Cox spoke with Billy and Jonah at the police station. (Id. at p. 541).
Detective Cox observed Billy’s injuries during the interview. (Id. at p. 575). After speaking
with them, the suspects included Appellant, Kyle, Anthony, and Fletcher. (Id. at p. 542).
Through the investigation, Detective Cox learned that Kyle shared a news article on
Facebook that referenced the incident involving Billy. (Id. at p. 545). Kyle posted on
Facebook, “niggas ain’t playing bout dat pape, with three cry - - laughing to the point of
crying emojies.” (Id. at p. 546, 618-619). Detective Cox explained that “pape” is a slang
term for paper money. (Id.) One of the photographs found on Kyle’s Facebook page
shows Kyle with a firearm.       (Id. at p. 568-569).    That firearm matches Fletcher’s
description of the firearm used in this incident. (Id. at p. 616). Fletcher described the gun
as “a desert tan brown,” and thought it was a Glock. (Id. at p. 611).
              Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, there was sufficient evidence to
establish the underlying theft offense as the record reveals Appellant, Kyle, and Anthony
were present and they went through Billy’s pockets looking for money while assaulting
him. (11/28/2022 Trial by Jury Tr., p. 347-350, 462, 466); See State v. Holloway, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 112129, 2023-Ohio-2387, ¶ 37-38 (finding sufficient evidence for
aggravated robbery where the defendants rummaged through the victim’s pockets and
vehicle); State v. Tyus, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108270, 2020-Ohio-103, ¶ 15-16 (finding

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                              - 13 -

sufficient evidence for robbery after the defendant physically attacked the victim while
rummaging through his personal belongings looking for something to steal). In addition,
“implicit within every robbery (and aggravated robbery) is a kidnapping.” State v. Jenkins,
15 Ohio St.3d 164, 198, fn. 29 (1984). Here, the kidnapping facilitated the robbery, i.e.,
Billy was forced into the vehicle by Appellant; seriously, physically harmed by Appellant,
Kyle, and Anthony; and went to the hospital via ambulance for treatment.
                Pursuant to Jenks, supra, there is sufficient evidence upon which the jury
could reasonably conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of kidnapping
and robbery were proven. Thus, the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s Crim.R.
29 motion.
                Also, the jury chose to believe the State’s witnesses. DeHass, supra, at
paragraph one of the syllabus. Based on the evidence presented, as previously stated,
the jury did not clearly lose its way in finding Appellant guilty of kidnapping and robbery.
Thompkins, supra, at 387.
                Appellant’s first, second, third, and fourth assignments of error are without
merit.

                               ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5

         THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ERRORS DURING TRIAL DENIED
         THE DEFENDANT A FAIR TRIAL AND/OR DUE PROCESS.

                In his fifth assignment of error, Appellant asserts his conviction should be
reversed because of cumulative error.

         Under the doctrine of cumulative error, a conviction will be reversed when
         the cumulative effect of error during a trial deprives a defendant of a fair trial
         even though each of the alleged instances of error do not individually
         constitute cause for reversal. State v. DeMarco, 31 Ohio St.3d 191, 509
         N.E.2d 1256 (1987). An error-free, perfect trial does not exist, and is not
         guaranteed by the Constitution. State v. Hill, 75 Ohio St.3d 195, 212, 661
         N.E.2d 1068 (1996). In order to find cumulative error, a record must contain
         multiple instances of harmless error. State v. Austin, 7th Dist. Mahoning No.

Case No. 23 MA 0035
                                                                                    - 14 -

      16 MA 0068, 2019-Ohio-1185, ¶ 64. When an appellate court determines
      no error has occurred, the doctrine cannot apply. State v. Lyons, 7th Dist.
      Jefferson No. 16 JE 0008, 93 N.E.3d 139, 2017-Ohio-4385, ¶ 46.

State v. Italiano, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 19 MA 0095, 2021-Ohio-1283, ¶ 35.

             As we find no error in any of Appellant’s assignments of error regarding his
conviction, this assignment based on cumulative error clearly has no merit. Id.
             Appellant’s fifth assignment of error is without merit.

                                     CONCLUSION

             For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s assignments of error are not well-
taken. The February 2, 2023 judgment and the February 6, 2023 amended judgment of
the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.

Robb, P.J., concurs.

Hanni, J., concurs.

Case No. 23 MA 0035
[Cite as State v. Ellison, 2024-Ohio-655.]

          For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error
 are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgments of
 the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, are affirmed. Costs to be taxed
 against the Appellant.
          A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
 in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that
 a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into
 execution.

                                         NOTICE TO COUNSEL

          This document constitutes a final judgment entry.