Court Opinion

ID: 9398163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 15:08:23.662215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.293279
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Kilgore, 2023-Ohio-1786.]

STATE OF OHIO                      )                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                                   )ss:                    NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN                   )

STATE OF OHIO                                              C.A. No.   21CA011826

        Appellee

        v.                                                 APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
                                                           ENTERED IN THE
ERIC KILGORE                                               COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                                           COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
        Appellant                                          CASE No.   21CR103811

                                  DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: May 30, 2023

        SUTTON, Presiding Judge.

        {¶1}     Defendant-Appellant, Eric Kilgore, appeals the judgment of the Lorain County

Court of Common Pleas. For the following reasons, this Court affirms.

                                                      I.

                                              Relevant Background

        {¶2}     This appeal arises from an incident on September 13, 2020, where Mr. Kilgore, and

co-defendant Iyaisha Palos-Grantham, robbed and assaulted the victim with a firearm at Ms. Palos-

Grantham’s residence. Mr. Kilgore was indicted on one count of aggravated robbery, in violation

of R.C. 2911.01, a felony of the first degree, with one and three year firearm specifications; one

count of kidnapping, in violation of R.C. 2905.01, a felony of the first degree, with one and three

year firearm specifications; one count of felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11, a felony

of the second degree, with one and three year firearm specifications; and one count of intimidation,

in violation of R.C. 2921.04, a felony of the third degree, with one and three year firearm
                                                2

specifications. Ms. Palos-Grantham was also indicted for the offenses of aggravated robbery,

kidnapping, and felonious assault with firearm specifications. Ms. Palos-Grantham, however, was

not indicted for intimidation.

       {¶3}    On the State’s motion, the cases were consolidated for purposes of a jury trial. Mr.

Kilgore and Ms. Palos-Grantham both waived their rights to a jury trial in writing and in open

court and were represented by the same attorney. A two-day bench trial commenced, and Mr.

Kilgore was found guilty of aggravated robbery, felonious assault, and one-year/three-year firearm

specifications on both counts. Ms. Palos-Grantham was found guilty of aggravated robbery with

no firearm specifications.

       {¶4}    At sentencing, the trial court merged aggravated robbery and felonious assault, as

well as the firearm specifications thereto, as allied offenses of similar import. The State elected

that Mr. Kilgore be sentenced on aggravated robbery and its firearm specifications. Further, the

trial court merged the one-year/three-year firearm specifications to aggravated robbery and elected

to sentence Mr. Kilgore on the three-year firearm specification. Mr. Kilgore was sentenced to a

mandatory three-year term of imprisonment on the firearm specification and to three years of

community control sanctions with a reserved indefinite prison term of eleven years minimum to

sixteen and a half years maximum on the aggravated robbery.

       {¶5}    Mr. Kilgore now appeals raising four assignments of error for our review.

                                                II.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

       THE VERDICT AS TO THE GUN SPECIFICATION IS AGAINST THE
       SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE AND SHOULD BE REVERSED
       BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH
       AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND
       ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
       OHIO.
                                                   3

       {¶6}    In his first assignment of error, Mr. Kilgore argues his conviction for the firearm

specification is not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, because the firearm was never

located, Mr. Kilgore argues the State did not produce sufficient evidence to prove he brandished

and used a firearm in the commission of aggravated robbery and the firearm was operable.

       {¶7}    “Whether a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence is a question of law that

this Court reviews de novo.” State v. Williams, 9th Dist. Summit No. 24731, 2009-Ohio-6955, ¶

18, citing State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 386 (1997). The relevant inquiry is whether the

prosecution has met its burden of production by presenting sufficient evidence to sustain a

conviction. Thompkins at 390 (Cook, J., concurring). For purposes of a sufficiency analysis, this

Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We do not evaluate credibility, and we make all reasonable inferences in

favor of the State. State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273 (1991). The evidence is sufficient if it

allows the trier of fact to reasonably conclude that the essential elements of the crime were proven

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

       {¶8}    Mr. Kilgore was convicted of aggravated robbery pursuant to R.C. 2911.01(A)(1),

which states, in part, that “[n]o person, in attempting or committing a theft offense * * *, or in

fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall * * * [h]ave a deadly weapon on or about

the offender’s person or under the offender’s control and either display the weapon, brandish it,

indicate that the offender possesses it, or use it * * *.” Mr. Kilgore was also convicted of two

firearm specifications pursuant R.C. 2941.145 for “[having] a firearm on or about [his] person or

under [his] control while committing the offense and display[ing] the firearm, brandish[ing] the

firearm, indicat[ing] that [he] possessed the firearm, or us[ing] it to facilitate the offense.” Because
                                                   4

Mr. Kilgore only challenges whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the

operability of the firearm, we will limit our analysis accordingly.

        {¶9}    “In determining whether a firearm is operable, the trier of fact examines the totality

of the circumstances.” State v. Johnson, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 14CA010688, 2016-Ohio-872, ¶ 8.

“Proof of the operability of a firearm can be established by circumstantial evidence, which can

consist of the brandishing of a firearm by the defendant and an implicit threat to shoot it.” State v.

Clayton, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26910, 2014-Ohio-2165, ¶ 8; see also R.C. 2923.11(B)(2).

“[W]itness testimony that the defendant was holding a gun while committing a robbery create[s]

an implicit threat to shoot and [is] sufficient proof of operability.” Id. at ¶ 13.

        {¶10} Here, even though the firearm was never recovered, the evidence provided by the

State, if believed, sufficiently established Mr. Kilgore brandished and used a firearm in the

commission of aggravated robbery and the firearm was operable. At trial, the victim testified:

                                                 ***

        I seen somebody with a gun. That’s when I first got pistol whipped. I went down.
        I was held at gunpoint.

                                                 ***

Additionally, the victim testified Mr. Kilgore hit him with a black gun two or three times on the

side of his face, temple area. The victim further testified he was laying on his stomach with his

forehead on the carpet and Mr. Kilgore pressed the gun to the back of his head while Ms. Palos-

Grantham obtained the passwords for his cellphone and Chase banking mobile app. According to

the victim, after Ms. Palos-Grantham transferred the money to her own account, Ms. Palos-

Grantham and Mr. Kilgore “talked about possibly killing [him],” but decided instead to take him

downstairs and have him lie face down in the grass behind the apartment. Mr. Kilgore also took
                                                 5

the victim’s driver’s license and told him if he tries to “retaliate or do anything, he’ll come to

Toledo and kill [him].”

       {¶11} Deputy Matt Schilke testified the victim had some swelling and a “knot” from his

eye bone going toward his ear along his temple. The victim’s injuries were photographed and

Deputy Schilke testified the injuries are consistent with being struck in the head with a firearm.

       {¶12} Upon viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we conclude a

rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Kilgore used and brandished

a firearm in the commission of aggravated robbery and the firearm was operable.

       {¶13} Accordingly, Mr. Kilgore’s first assignment of error is overruled.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

       THE TRIAL COURT’S VERDICT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AS AN
       IMPERMISSIBLE INCONSISTENT BENCH TRIAL VERDICT.

       {¶14} In his second assignment of error, Mr. Kilgore argues the trial court’s verdict should

be set aside as an impermissible inconsistent bench trial verdict. Specifically, Mr. Kilgore argues

the verdicts are inconsistent because Ms. Palos-Grantham, his co-defendant, was convicted of

aggravated robbery with no firearm specifications, and he was convicted of aggravated robbery,

felonious assault, and firearm specifications. Mr. Kilgore, in making this argument, urges this

Court to adopt the Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s reasoning in U.S. v. Maybury, 274 F.2d 899

(2d Cir. 1960), and “hold trial courts to a standard higher than that of juries,” when inconsistent

verdicts are rendered in a bench trial.

       {¶15} In Maybury at 901, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the State’s

argument, on facts specific to Maybury, that the rule upholding jury verdicts in criminal cases,

despite inconsistencies between counts, applied to criminal cases tried to a judge. In so doing, the

Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Mr. Maybury’s conviction for uttering or publishing of
                                                  6

a forged check with intent to defraud the United States, “knowing the same to be forged[,]” which

it determined was inconsistent with the trial court’s acquittal of Mr. Maybury’s forgery charge.

Id.   Notably, the Maybury Court did not address Mr. Kilgore’s specific argument, in this

assignment of error, which relates to “inconsistent” verdicts between co-defendants, and not

inconsistencies between counts for the same defendant.

        {¶16} Moreover, “[t]here is no constitutional requirement that verdicts between

codefendants be consistent. State v. Castleberry, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23644, 2007-Ohio-5803,

¶ 17, citing In the Matter of Herring, 9th Dist. Summit No. 17646, * 3 (Aug. 4, 1996). “Regardless

of any inconsistency, a guilty verdict will stand ‘so long [as] it is supported by sufficient evidence

and is the product of a fair trial.’” Id.

        {¶17} Accordingly, Mr. Kilgore’s second assignment of error is overruled.

                                   ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

        THE TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT A
        BENCH TRIAL, BECAUSE THE JURY WAIVER IN THE CASE AT BAR
        WAS NOT EXECUTED IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY
        REQUIREMENTS.

        {¶18} In his third assignment of error, Mr. Kilgore argues the trial court committed plain

error by holding a bench trial in the absence of a valid jury waiver. Specifically, Mr. Kilgore

argues, because the jury waiver was not filed with the Clerk of Courts prior to the bench trial

commencing, the trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial.

        {¶19} R.C. 2945.05 states:

        In all criminal cases pending in courts of record in this state, the defendant may
        waive a trial by jury and be tried by the court without a jury. Such waiver by a
        defendant, shall be in writing, signed by the defendant, and filed in said cause and
        made a part of the record thereof. It shall be entitled in the court and cause, and in
        substance as follows: “I [Mr. Kilgore], defendant in the above cause, hereby
        voluntarily waive and relinquish my right to a trial by jury, and elect to be tried by
                                                 7

       a Judge of the Court in which the said cause may be pending. I fully understand
       that under the laws of this state, I have a constitutional right to a trial by jury.”

       Such waiver of trial by jury must be made in open court after the defendant has
       been arraigned and has had opportunity to consult with counsel. Such waiver may
       be withdrawn by the defendant at any time before the commencement of the trial.

“[T]o be valid, a waiver must meet five conditions. It must be: (1) in writing, (2) signed by the

defendant, (3) filed, (4) made part of the record, and (5) made in open court.” State v. Lomax, 114

Ohio St.3d 350, 2007-Ohio-4277, ¶ 9.

       {¶20} Here, the record reveals Mr. Kilgore signed a written jury waiver, and made a jury

waiver in open court, in compliance with the requirements set forth in R.C. 2945.05. The written

jury waiver was then filed with the Clerk of Courts on September 1, 2021, after the bench trial

concluded, and was made a part of the record. Mr. Kilgore concedes these points, yet still

challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction because the jury waiver was not filed, prior to the

commencement of trial, with the Clerk of Courts.

       {¶21} In State v. Franklin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81426, 2003-Ohio-2649, ¶ 15-16, the

Eighth District Court of Appeals addressed Mr. Kilgore’s exact argument, stating:

       strict compliance with R.C. 2945.05 is met upon filing the jury waiver; there is no
       rule pertaining to when the filing must occur. State v. McKinney, Cuyahoga App.
       No. 80991, 2002-Ohio-7249, citing State v. Sekera, Cuyahoga App. No. 80690,
       2002-Ohio-5972. Thus, as this court stated in State v. Antonic (Nov. 22, 2000),
       Cuyahoga App. No. 77678:

        “R.C. 2945.05 only requires that the waiver occur before trial and that the waiver
       is filed, time-stamped and contained in the record. See State v. Pless (1996), 74
       Ohio St.3d 333, 658 N.E.2d 766; State v. Gipson (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 626, 687
       N.E.2d 750. There is no requirement that the waiver be filed and placed in the
       record before trial.” See State v. Jones (Feb. 5, 1999), Hamilton App. No. C-
       980270.” (Emphasis added.)

       Similarly, in Sekera, supra, this court stated, “According to Pless, strict compliance
       with R.C. 2945.05 is met upon the filing of the waiver; Pless makes no rule
       pertaining to when the filing occurs. * * * The fact that the waiver was not
       journalized until after the trial concluded is not fatal.”
                                                   8

(Emphasis in original.)

        {¶22} We agree with our sister district’s reasoning because R.C. 2945.05 does not require

the signed jury waiver to be filed and made part of the record prior to the commencement of a

bench trial. Further, Mr. Kilgore’s jury waiver was signed and occurred in open court prior to the

commencement of the bench trial and was then filed with the clerk of courts and made part of the

record after the conclusion of the bench trial. Therefore, based upon the plain language of the

statute, Mr. Kilgore’s jury waiver strictly complied with the requirements of R.C. 2945.05, and the

trial court had jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial in this matter.

        {¶23} Accordingly, Mr. Kilgore’s third assignment of error is overruled.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV

        MR. KILGORE WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS TO EFFECTIVE
        ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY TRIAL COUNSEL’S AND THE
        COURT’S FAILURE TO FAIRLY AND ADEQUATELY PROTECT HIS
        INTEREST DUE TO COUNSEL’S CONFLICTS IN REPRESENTATION
        OF MULTIPLE CO-DEFENDANTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE
        SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
        CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE ONE, SECTION TEN OF THE OHIO
        CONSTITUTION.

        {¶24} In his fourth assignment of error, Mr. Kilgore argues he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel because he and his co-defendant, Ms. Palos-Grantham, were represented by

the same retained attorney during the bench trial.

        {¶25} “The Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel embraces the correlative right

to representation that is free from conflicts of interest.” State v. Worrell, 9th Dist. Summit Nos.

23378, 23409, 2007-Ohio-7058, ¶ 23. “[W]here a trial court knows or reasonably should know of

an attorney’s possible conflict of interest in the representation of a person charged with a crime,

the trial court has an affirmative duty to inquire whether a conflict of interest actually exists.” Id.
                                                  9

at ¶ 25, quoting State v. Gillard, 64 Ohio St.3d 304, 311 (1992). “Where a trial court breaches its

affirmative duty to inquire, a criminal defendant’s rights to counsel and to a fair trial are

impermissibly imperiled and prejudice or adverse effect will be presumed.” (Internal quotations

and citations omitted.) Worrell at ¶ 25.

       {¶26} On April 16, 2021, fifteen days prior to the start of the bench trial, the trial court

addressed the parties regarding joint representation. At that time, the trial court separately inquired

of counsel, Mr. Kilgore, and Ms. Palos-Grantham regarding any potential conflicts and whether

the co-defendants’ interests were aligned with each other. Counsel indicated that, after reviewing

discovery, he did not know of any reason a conflict would arise between the co-defendants’

interests at trial.   Further, the trial court separately asked Mr. Kilgore and Ms. Palos-

Grantham a series of questions regarding their legal rights, as well as the dangers and pitfalls of

joint representation. The co-defendants responded they understood their rights to have separate

counsel, and also understood the dangers and pitfalls of joint representation. As such, the trial

court found Mr. Kilgore and Ms. Palos-Grantham “knowingly and intelligently and voluntarily

enter[ed] into joint representation[.]” The State noted its objection to joint representation on the

record due to the risk of unforeseen conflict and the inability for the State to negotiate a plea deal

with either Mr. Kilgore or Ms. Palos-Grantham. The trial court also advised Mr. Kilgore and Ms.

Palos-Grantham that, at any time in the future, they could hire their own counsel. Given the

foregoing, we cannot say the trial court failed to adequately investigate any potential conflict. See

Worrell at ¶ 26. At no time at trial did Mr. Kilgore object to joint representation.

       {¶27} “‘In order to establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised

no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his

lawyer’s performance.’” Worrell, 2007-Ohio-7058, at ¶ 23, quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S.
                                                 10

335, 348 (1980). “To establish the constitutional predicate for a claim of ineffective assistance of

counsel, a defendant must show that his counsel actively represented conflicting interests. A

defendant who shows that a conflict of interest actually affected the adequacy of his representation

need not demonstrate prejudice in order to obtain relief.” (Internal citation omitted.) Worrell at ¶

23.

       {¶28} As this Court previously stated:

       [a]n actual conflict of interest, for purposes of the Sixth Amendment, is a conflict
       of interest that adversely affects counsel’s performance. Thus, to prove an actual
       conflict of interest, the defendant must show that his counsel actively represented
       conflicting interests, and that the conflict actually affected the adequacy of his
       representation. In order to show such a conflict, a defendant must point to specific
       instances in the record to suggest an actual conflict or impairment of [his] interests.
       An adverse effect is established where the defendant points to some plausible
       alternative defense strategy or tactic [that] could have been pursued, but was not
       because of the actual conflict impairing counsel's performance. While it is not
       necessary to prove that the defense theory would have been successful, it is
       necessary to show that the alternative theory was viable. Additionally, an appellant
       must establish that the alternative defense was inherently in conflict with or not
       undertaken due to the attorney’s other loyalties or interests.

(Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Jackson, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27478, 2015-

Ohio-4356, ¶ 13.

       {¶29} Here, Mr. Kilgore generally argued “[c]ounsel’s theory of the case [that Ms. Palos-

Grantham was in a relationship with both Mr. Kilgore and victim and a fist fight broke out between

the two men] explicitly [hurt] Mr. Kilgore.” However, Mr. Kilgore has not pointed to any plausible

defense strategy or tactic that could have been pursued by counsel but was not pursued due to an

actual conflict impairing counsel’s performance. See Jackson at ¶ 13. Therefore, Mr. Kilgore

failed to show an actual conflict that adversely affected his counsel’s performance.

       {¶30} Accordingly, Mr. Kilgore’s fourth assignment of error is overruled.
                                                11

                                                III.

       {¶31} Mr. Kilgore’s four assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Lorain

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

                                                                               Judgment affirmed.

       There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

       We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common

Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of

this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

       Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

       Costs taxed to Appellant.

                                                       BETTY SUTTON
                                                       FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, J.
STEVENSON, J.
CONCUR,
                                        12

APPEARANCES:

GIOVANNA V. BREMKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

J.D. TOMLINSON, Prosecuting Attorney, and LINDSEY C. POPROCKI, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for Appellee.