Portage County Legal News

Man who robbed, beat victim loses appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 6, 2015

The 9th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas in a robbery case.

The defendant, David Sharrock, appealed from his conviction in the lower court arguing that it was against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.

Case summary states that, on Feb. 20, 2014, police responded to a call regarding a fight in a Family Dollar parking lot in Akron.

Upon arriving at the scene, the police encountered John Lick, who informed them that he had been the victim of an assault.

At trial, Lick testified that Sharrock approached him and ordered him to empty his pockets.

When Lick refused, Sharrock “sucker punched” Lick, causing him to fall to the ground.

Sharrock then proceeded to kick Lick and empty his pockets, taking money and a cell phone.

The assault only ended when witnesses Francine McClain and Latoni Whiteside arrived on the scene and told Sharrock to stop.

McClain testified at trial that she observed Sharrock kick Lick in the head while Lick was on the ground, search Lick’s pockets and then kick Lick once more before leaving.

Sharrock was charged with second-degree felony robbery under R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), which provides that “no person in attempting or committing a theft offense or in fleeing immediately after the attempt or offense, shall inflict, attempt to inflict, or threaten physical harm to another.”

After a bench trial, Sharrock was found guilty on the robbery charge and the lesser included offenses of misdemeanor theft and assault.

For sentencing, the state opted to proceed on the robbery and Sharrock was subsequently sentenced to five years in prison.

On direct appeal to the 9th District court, Sharrock argued that he should have been granted an acquittal because the state failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his robbery conviction.

“Sharrock does not dispute that he assaulted Lick or that he took Lick’s belongings,” Judge Beth Whitmore wrote in the opinion she authored on behalf of the district court’s three-judge appellate panel. “Instead, Sharrock challenges the evidence presented regarding his use of force during the theft.”

The appellate panel held that Sharrock’s argument lacked merit. It cited the “ample evidence” that Sharrock intended to steal Lick’s belongings during the assault.

Whitmore pointed to Lick’s testimony that Sharrock ordered him to empty his pockets before assaulting him, indicating his intent to commit theft.

She also reviewed McClain’s testimony that Sharrock was going through Lick’s pockets when she and a friend entered the Family Dollar parking lot.

“McClain observed that Sharrock kicked Lick ‘one more time before we were able to get out of the truck’ after going through Lick’s pockets,” Whitmore wrote. “Whiteside testified that Sharrock took Lick’s backpack and Lick told her that ‘he got my things.’”

The officer who apprehended Sharrock also testified at trial. He told the trial court that Sharrock made a statement saying, “MF-er got what was coming to him. I did him right. Yeah, I took his stuff.”

During an interview at the police station, Sharrock again admitted to taking Lick’s things.

“Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the state set forth sufficient evidence to prove that Sharrock assaulted Lick and stole his belongings as part of the same, ongoing act,” Whitmore wrote. “Indeed, McClain’s testimony alone is enough to establish this.”

The court of appeals made a similar finding with regard to Sharrock’s claim that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

According to Sharrock, there were inconsistencies in the testimony provided by McClain and Lick.

He pointed out that McClain was the only witness who testified that Sharrock kicked Lick in the head once after stealing from him.

Sharrock also argued that it was important that Lick told a police officer that he was attacked for no reason but, at trial, he testified that Sharrock told him to empty his pockets and then attacked him.

“Here, the alleged inconsistencies that Sharrock identifies in the testimony are minor, if indeed they are inconsistencies,” Whitmore wrote. “Contrary to Sharrock’s position, a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence merely because there is conflicting evidence before the trier of fact.”

In Sharrock’s case, the appellate panel noted that the trial court was able to hear all of the evidence and it chose to believe the testimony that McClain and Lick gave.

“Having reviewed the record, this is not the exceptional case where the factfinder lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice,” Whitmore concluded. “Sharrock’s assignments of error are overruled.”

The judgment of the Summit County court was affirmed with Presiding Judge Donna Carr and Judge Julie Schafer joining Whitmore to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Sharrock, 2015-Ohio-2253.

[Back]