State v. Staken

1

2022-Ohio-2680

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUENTIN STAKEN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 111088

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

August 4, 2022

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-20-655185-A

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristen Hatcher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

VanHo Law and Adam M. VanHo, for appellant.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Quentin Staken ("Staken") appeals his conviction and sentence and asks this court to remand to the trial court for further proceedings. We affirm Staken's conviction and sentence.

{¶ 2} Staken was found guilty after a bench trial of the following:

One count of aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1);

One count of robbery, a second-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(1);

One count of robbery, a second-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2);

One count of felonious assault, a second-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1);

One count of assault, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A);

One count of theft, a fifth-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1);

One count of theft, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1); and

One count of misuse of credit cards, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of RC. 2913.21(B)(2).

Journal entry No. 119342644 (Nov. 3, 2021). In addition, he was found guilty of the one- and three-year firearm specifications attached to the aggravated robbery, robbery, and felonious assault counts pursuant to RC. 2941.141(A) and R.C 2941.145(A).

{¶ 3} For the purpose of sentencing, Counts 1, 2, and 3 merged Counts 4 and 5 merged; and Counts 6, 7, and 8 merged. The trial court sentenced Staken to four years' incarceration for aggravated robbery; three years' incarceration for felonious assault; and six months' incarceration for theft and misuse of credit cards. The trial court also imposed three-year firearm specifications for aggravated robbery and felonious assault. The trial court ordered the terms of incarceration to run concurrently and the terms for the firearm specification to be served consecutively. In total, Staken was sentenced to ten years of incarceration.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 4} On October 13, 2020, Jennifer Helms ("Helms") was walking towards the door to her home sometime before midnight. Helms observed three people coming towards her driveway and was approached by one of them. All three individuals were wearing face masks and hoods, and one of them asked Helms for her internet password. Helms replied that she did not have one, and the individual pulled out a gun and started walking closer to Helms. The individual demanded that Helms hand over whatever she had, and as she went to take her purse off of her shoulder, the individual, who Helms described as a black man, struck Helms in the back of the head three or four times with the gun. No one else was holding a gun but the man who struck Helms.

{¶ 5} Helms fell to the ground, and she handed her purse to another individual, who told Helms to "do what he says." (Tr. 84.) Helms's wallet was in her purse and it contained cash, her driver's license, and several credit cards. Helms's keys were still in her hands and one of the individuals tried to pull the keys out of her hand. They managed to snatch the house key, but Helms hid her car key, and pretended to throw it. The individual with the gun went to look for the key, and Helms ran to her house, which was unlocked. Her husband was home, but asleep, and Helms screamed for him. Helms's husband took her into their bathroom where they observed Helms bleeding, and blood was on her dress and in her hair. Helms's husband called 911.

{¶ 6} Officer Thomas Smith ("Officer Smith") responded to the 911 call and took Helms's statement. Officer Smith noticed a gash on Helms's head, and Helms shared a description of the three assailants with Officer Smith. Officer Smith alerted other police officers who were in the area looking for the suspects. Helms described one black man and two white women. Officers found Helms's purse on the ground but the contents and her cell phone were not located. Later, Helms was treated at the hospital for her head wound.

{¶ 7} After the incident and while on patrol, Officer Carlos Guerra ("Officer Guerra") received a description of the assailants. He encountered a woman matching the description that told Officer Guerra she, another woman, and a man were looking for Wi-Fi. She told Officer Guerra that the man's name was Cash. Officer Guerra reported the information, and the woman was identified as Kaylee Reese ("Reese").

{¶ 8} Helms and her husband reported to Detective Daniel Florentz ("Detective Florentz") that they noticed several unauthorized charges on one of the stolen credit cards. They provided Detective Florentz with a list of places where the card was used. Detective Florentz obtained video surveillance from those locations including Walgreens and an RTA Rapid Station. Detective Florentz used the information from Officer Guerra's interview with Reese to investigate Cash, who was later identified as Staken. Detective Florentz learned that Staken was involved in a burglary with Caroline Montgomery ("Montgomery"). Detective Florentz showed Montgomery the video surveillance footage, and she identified her granddaughter, Ysabella Montgomery ("Ysabella") and Staken, who were dating.

{¶ 9} Ysabella and Staken were on several surveillance videos using Helms's credit card. Detective Florentz prepared a photo lineup with Staken's picture and showed it to Helms. Helms identified another man in the lineup with 50% certainty because it was dark and rainy the night of her assault. Despite this, Staken was arrested and his bedroom was searched.

{¶ 10} The police found a black backpack, a BB gun, and a couple of firearm magazines loaded with ammunition. During an interview with the police, Staken admitted to being in Helms's driveway during the time of the incident, but claimed that Ysabella did everything including hitting Helms with a .38 pistol. He also stated to police that he may have had the credit card and might have bought some stuff. Detective Florentz testified that these statements were inconsistent with Staken's prior statements where Staken claimed to not have any knowledge of the incident.

{¶ 11} On October 4, 2021, the state filed a motion asking the court to allow Helms and her husband to testify remotely via live videoconferencing. On October 14, 2021, the trial court held a hearing regarding the state's motion and granted the motion. Journal entry No. 119061936 (Oct. 14, 2021). During the hearing on the motion the state in its opening statement explained:

Specifically in this case, Mr. and Mrs. Helms they do live in Pennsylvania approximately 6 hours away from here. They have traveled out here some time previously when trial was set. Travel out here does require them to bring their three children. Specifically Mr. Helms takes vacation from work. They have to arrange someone to watch their children when they are in town. It is a significant inconvenience to them. They do have, as I understand, limited time. Both of them are present via Zoom today and can testify to those facts.

(Tr. 21.)

{¶ 12} Helms and her husband testified at the hearing that they live in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and that the drive time from their home to Cleveland is six hours. The trial had been previously scheduled and rescheduled earlier in the year, and the Helms drove to Cleveland, but the trial was postponed and rescheduled. Mr. Helms testified that he had to take time off from work and that he had limited vacation hours because he started his current job four months prior to this hearing. He also testified that he had to find lodging in Cleveland that would be able to accommodate his three children, in addition to childcare for the children, because they do not have family in Cleveland.

{¶ 13} Helms testified after her husband and her testimony was similar to that of Mr. Helms. She explained to the court that she was a stay-at-home mother who homeschooled her children, ages eight, seven, and five. Helms testified as to the difficulty it would be to make the drive from Harrisburg to Cleveland.

{¶ 14} During closing, the state explained to the court that

[t]his wouldn't infringe on Mr. Staken's rights; they're very clearly visible. Their demeanor can be assessed, their face can be assessed. Causing them to travel not only would be a great difficulty to them; but with COVID right now we're asking them to bring three children from out-of-state in here, bring them into the courthouse. It just increases the risk of spread, and again I do not think that this would infringe on his rights at all as they can be clearly seen and the jury would be able to clearly assess their credibility.

(Tr. 36.)

{¶ 15} After the closing arguments, the trial court engaged in a series of questions between the court, the state, and Staken's counsel. The trial court inquired as to whether or not Ysabella was going to testify that she saw Staken assault and rob Helms. The trial court also inquired about whether or not there was a disagreement that something happened to Helms in her driveway and that her husband called 911. Staken's trial counsel informed the court that the issue was that the state could demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Staken was involved with the incident that happened at the Helmses' home, not that the incident did not actually occur.

{¶ 16} In response to Staken's trial counsel's admission the trial...