State v. Tillison

[Cite as State v. Tillison, 2019-Ohio-1395.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 18AP0047 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE MARCUS D. TILLISON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 2016 CRC-I 000371 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: April 15, 2019 CALLAHAN, Judge. {¶1} Appellant, Marcus Tillison, appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery and robbery. This Court affirms. I. {¶2} On October 24, 2016, a man contacted Wooster Taxi, LLC to arrange for transportation from the Buehler’s parking lot in Wooster. The man instructed the driver to drive to Orrville then gave directions that led to a dead-end street. When the taxi reached its destination, the man stole cash from the driver and fled on foot. After calling the cell phone number from which the ride had been requested several times, the driver contacted the Orville Police Department to report the crime and drove to the police station. Police officers used a phone number provided by the driver to identify Mr. Tillison as a suspect, and the driver selected his picture from a photo array. 2 {¶3} Mr. Tillison was charged with aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) and robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1), R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), and R.C. 2911.02(A)(3). A jury found him guilty of all charges and, after merging the robbery convictions with the aggravated robbery conviction for purposes of sentencing, the trial court sentenced Mr. Tillison to a seven-year prison term. Mr. Tillison filed this appeal. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS FOR AGGRAVATED ROBBERY, R.C. 2911.01(A)(1); ROBBERY, R.C. 2911.02(A)(1); ROBBERY, R.C. 2911.02(A)(2); AND ROBBERY, R.C. 2911.02(A)(3), WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. {¶4} Mr. Tillison’s first assignment of error argues that his convictions are based on insufficient evidence. This Court does not agree. {¶5} “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). In reviewing the evidence, 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. {¶6} Mr. Tillison’s first argument is that his conviction for robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) and his conviction for aggravated robbery are supported by insufficient evidence because the State did not prove that he used a deadly weapon in commission of the offenses. 3 {¶7} R.C. 2911.02(A)(1) provides that “[n]o person, in attempting or committing a theft offense * * * shall ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals