State v. Williams

[Cite as State v. Williams, 2022-Ohio-3858.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-22-1012
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202103047
v.
Tyler Williams DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 28, 2022
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Laurel A. Kendall, for appellant.
*****
MAYLE, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Tyler Williams, appeals the January 6, 2022 judgment of the
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas denying him bail under R.C. 2937.222. For the
following reasons, we affirm.
I. Background and Facts
{¶ 2} On August 20, 2021, 11-year-old N.S. and 14-year-old M.S. were each shot
in the head while playing basketball in front of their house. Both boys were seriously
injured. M.S. survived, but has traumatic brain damage that will require multiple
surgeries. N.S. died from his injuries two days after the shooting.
{¶ 3} Williams was indicted on six counts related to the shootings: aggravated
murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), an unclassified felony; murder in violation of
R.C. 2903.02(B), an unclassified felony; two counts of felonious assault in violation of
R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), each a second-degree felony; attempted aggravated murder in
violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) and R.C. 2923.02, a first-degree felony; and discharge of a
firearm on or near prohibited premises in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3), a first-degree
felony. Each charge also carried a firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145.
{¶ 4} Upon Williams’s arrest, the trial court ordered him held without bail and
scheduled a hearing to deny bail under R.C. 2937.222. At the hearing, the state called
detective Shaun Conklin of the Toledo Police Department (“TPD”) to testify. Conklin,
the lead investigator in the case involving N.S. and M.S., prepared a PowerPoint
presentation with pertinent facts from his investigation that he used throughout his
testimony.
{¶ 5} The bulk of Conklin’s testimony related to three topics: the facts of the
shooting, related criminal activity, and Williams’s criminal history.
2.
A. Facts of the shooting
{¶ 6} Conklin testified that N.S. and M.S. were shot on August 20, 2021, at 7:51
p.m. in front of a house on Austin Street in Toledo. Officers on the scene found shell
casings from two different guns at the corner of Austin and Elm Street: 11 casings from a
9 millimeter gun and four casings from a .40 caliber gun. Conklin believed that this
indicated that two shooters were involved.
{¶ 7} On August 22, TPD received a tip through Crime Stopper that Williams was
responsible for the shooting. The caller provided Williams’s address on Mayville Place
and said that he drove “a black Ford Focus that was seen at the time of the shooting.”
Conklin tried to find the black Focus at the Mayville address, but only found a U-Haul
truck in the driveway. However, he knew that Williams lived at the address because of
“numerous police reports that documented he did, in fact, live there.” Conklin also
learned that Williams’s mother had a black 2010 Ford Focus registered in her name.
{¶ 8} Conklin pieced together the following timeline of events on August 20 using
footage from two security cameras, one at St. Vincent Hospital that was pointed at the
intersection of Mayville and Page Street and one at a house near the corner of Austin and
Elm that was diagonal from the corner where the shooters stood.1 The St. Vincent
camera was pointed directly down Mayville and provided an unobstructed view of
1
During the hearing, the state was unable to get the security video footage embedded in
Conklin’s PowerPoint presentation to play, but the prosecutor had Conklin describe what
was in the videos for the court.
3.
Williams’s front porch and the sidewalk in front of his house, albeit from a distance. The
Elm Street camera provided limited views of both Austin and Elm, including the area
where N.S. and M.S. were playing when they were shot.
{¶ 9} At 7:42 p.m., two people leave Williams’s house, get into a black car, and
drive away at 7:44 p.m. Conklin showed the court an enhanced and magnified picture
from the video of the two people who left the Mayville house. The first person who
walked out—whom Conklin called “Tyler”—was wearing “a gray hoodie, * * * black
shorts [with] a white stripe with a little bit of red going down the side of the shorts, and *
* * bright white tennis shoes.” The second person—whom the police had not been able
to identify as of the time of the bond hearing—was wearing a “dark-colored hoodie and
blue jeans.”
{¶ 10} On cross-examination, Conklin “couldn’t say 100 percent that there wasn’t
somebody in [the black] car * * *” before the two men walked out of the Mayville house
and got in the car, “but we believe it was just the two that came out of Mayville.” To
support this belief, Conklin explained that the security footage that he reviewed began
before the clip that he described for the court, and “[y]ou do not see any activity around
the vehicle. Or, when you Zoom [sic] in, you can’t see any activity inside the vehicle to
indicate that there was anybody else in there.”
{¶ 11} At 7:45 p.m., N.S. and M.S. were playing basketball in front of their house
on Austin. The black Focus drove by on Elm and slowed down, went past the
4.
intersection of Austin and Elm, pulled into an alley, turned around, and drove back down
Elm past Austin. Immediately after passing Austin the second time, the Focus stops and
“appears to be watching the boys playing basketball.”
{¶ 12} At 7:49 p.m., the Focus drives up Moss Street, which is a block past
Austin, and parks near the corner of Moss and Elm. Conklin testified that the same two
suspects who got into the Focus at the house on Mayville got out of the Focus on Moss
and walked down Elm toward Austin. He said that “[y]ou can see the one suspect clearly
in the corner, that he’s wearing the blue jeans and dark hoodie, raise a firearm up and
begin to fire at the two boys playing basketball * * *.” N.S. and M.S. “run from the
shooting to the front of their house where they both drop from their injuries, basically, in
their front yard.” Conklin said that the shooting happened at “7:50 [p.m.] and some
seconds.”
{¶ 13} Finally, at 7:54 p.m., the black Focus returns to Mayville, parks in front of
Williams’s house, and the same two suspects get out of the car and go back inside the
house. The Focus in the video had the same temporary license plate as the Focus
registered to Williams’s mother. Conklin testified that he did a “Google map search” to
verify the distance between Williams’s house on Mayville and the house on Austin. He
found that the houses were “.8 miles away, with an average drive time of three to four
minutes[,]” which was consistent with the timestamps on the security videos, and, he
5.
said, “show[ed] that the timeframe of them leaving Mayville and them arriving at Austin
and Elm fits.”
B. Related criminal activity
{¶ 14} In addition to the facts immediately related to the August 20 shooting,
Conklin testified about other criminal activity that he believed connected Williams to the
shooting.
{¶ 15} The first two incidents involved shots being fired into Williams’s home.
The first time this happened was June 16, 2021. That day, witnesses saw two men on
bikes fire several shots at Williams’s house. The witnesses also reported that two men
came out of the house and fired back at the men on bikes. Police collected several .40
caliber shell casings from in front of the Mayville house—i.e., from the area where the
men who came from inside the house were shooting back at the men on bikes—that
matched the .40 caliber shell casings found at the scene of the August 20 shooting on
Austin Street. Conklin summed up the significance this had for his investigation:
[A]ll—the .40-caliber casings were fired from the same firearm.
***
The fact that the .40-caliber casings were fired from the same gun
tells us that that gun came from [the] Mayville [address]. The persons
inside [the] Mayville [address] came out with that gun and fired back at the
suspects who were shooting at the house. And that tells us that the same
6.
weapon that was used on that night—or day, was used at the scene of the
homicide on August 20th, 2021.
It is undisputed that Williams was incarcerated at the Correctional Treatment Facility
(“CTF”) and did not have physical access to the Mayville house from April 6 to
August 18, 2021—including on June 16, 2021.
{¶ 16} Police identified Omar Sykes as a suspect in the June 16 shooting, which
Conklin found significant to his investigation because Sykes was a “close family friend”
of N.S. and M.S.’s family, and Conklin believed that the August 20 shooting “stemmed
from this ongoing feud with the two groups shooting back and forth at each other.”
Conklin’s PowerPoint also noted that a person named Charles Winters told police at the
time of the June 16 shooting that his nephew (whose name was not in the PowerPoint),
who did not currently reside at the house, “was having an on-going feud with Omar
Sykes.”
{¶ 17} On cross-examination, Conklin clarified that he was not involved in the
investigation of the June 16 incident; his testimony was based on the reports of other
officers. Those officers did not have any video footage from June 16 because “the
camera that we used for the homicide incident was, basically, installed because of that
incident on June 16th.” That is, to the best of Conklin’s knowledge, there was not a
security camera on St. Vincent Hospital that covered the area of Mayville and Page
(including Williams’s house) on June 16.
7.
{¶ 18} Conklin also said that he and the lead investigator for the June 16 shooting
interviewed Sykes about the incident, but Sykes had not been charged and the
investigation of the June 16 shooting into Williams’s house was ongoing.
{¶ 19} The second incident was on August 22, 2021—two days after N.S. and
M.S. were shot—when police again responded to a report of shots fired into Williams’s
house. Video from a responding officer’s body camera showed that Williams was
wearing black shorts with a stripe down the side that was white from the waist to the mid-
thigh and red from the mid-thigh to the hem. The shorts also appear to have a logo in
front of the stripe that is illegible in the photo (taken from the body camera footage) that
Conklin included in his PowerPoint. Conklin testified that these were the “same shorts as
seen in the video from the shooting.” There is also a pair of “bright white tennis shoes”
on the floor near where Williams was sitting.
{¶ 20} The next related criminal activity was a traffic stop involving Williams on
September 18, 2021. Conklin said that Williams was stopped while driving the black
2010 Ford Focus registered to his mother. During the stop, police found a loaded gun
partially concealed under the legs of a passenger, and a baggie of suspected cocaine in
Williams’s front pants pocket.
{¶ 21} On cross, Conklin said that he was not directly involved in the traffic stop
or the subsequent investigation. However, although no felony charges had yet been filed
against Williams related to the stop, Conklin believed that the investigation was ongoing
8.
because “there was some kind of analysis still being done of the substance that was
located” in Williams’s pocket during the stop.
{¶ 22} The final related activity was a police search of Williams’s new residence
pursuant to a search warrant in December 2021. Police found three pistols and one rifle
in the house. Conklin said that Williams was legally prohibited from possessing or being
around firearms because he was a convicted felon.
C. Williams’s criminal record
{¶ 23} Finally, Conklin testified to Williams’s criminal record. In 2015, when
Williams was 13 years old, he and a 15-year-old boy broke into a woman’s home, held
her at gunpoint, and raped in front of her young daughter. Williams was adjudicated
delinquent for committing acts that would be rape and aggravated burglary with a firearm
if committed by an adult. Both offenses would be first-degree felonies if committed by
an adult. Williams was committed to the Department of Youth Services for five years.
{¶ 24} In June of 2020, Williams was released from DYS and placed on aftercare,
the juvenile equivalent of parole.
{¶ 25} In August of 2020—less than two months after his release and while he
was still on aftercare—Williams was a passenger in a car that fled from police. During
the police chase, Williams threw a bag of fentanyl from the car. When the car stopped,
Williams threw a handgun before running away. As a result of this incident, Williams
was convicted of possession of fentanyl, a fifth-degree felony, and improperly handling a
9.
firearm in a motor vehicle, a fourth-degree felony. He was placed on community control
for two years, which included six months at CTF. Williams was at CTF from April 6 to
August 18, 2021.
{¶ 26} The shooting on Austin happened two days after Williams was released
from CTF.
D. Additional information
{¶ 27} To conclude his testimony, the state asked Conklin about Lucas County’s
electronic monitoring program for people who are released on bail. Conklin said that the
program was not the responsibility of the TPD, but, as far as he knew, (1) the department
was not staffed 24 hours a day, (2) defendants who were on electronic monitoring were
capable of removing the monitoring units that they wore, (3) defendants sometimes did
remove the monitoring units, (4) the TPD was not immediately notified when someone
removed their monitoring unit, and (5) any person who removed their monitoring unit
could remain in the community for an extended period of time without the TPD knowing
about it.
{¶ 28} On cross-examination, Conklin said that he sometimes gives the prosecutor
input on the bond the state will request, but he was unaware of the state’s initial request
for a cash bond in Williams’s case. Conklin was familiar with the bond reports that the
trial court used. He had not seen the bond report in Williams’s case, but thought that all
of the information that he had testified to regarding Williams’s criminal history should
10.
have been in the bond report available to the state at the time it made its request for a
cash bond.
{¶ 29} Conklin also explained on cross that, although he believed that the police
had probable cause to issue a warrant for Williams’s arrest in December 2021, his
investigation of the August 20 shooting was ongoing. There was a second suspect—the
person wearing a dark hoodie who was seen in the security videos actually shooting a
gun—whom the police had not yet identified or arrested.
{¶ 30} Regarding a feud between Williams and Sykes, Conklin agreed with
defense counsel that there was no “paper trail” documenting a feud between the men.
The evidence that Conklin had of animosity between them was (1) someone at the
Mayville house on June 16 saying that Sykes was responsible for that shooting incident,
(2) Sykes saying during his interview after the August 20 shooting that he was “good
friends with” N.S. and M.S.’s family, and (3) the Crime Stopper tip on August 22 saying
that the August 20 shooting “was retaliation.” However, “[w]hen asked directly, nobody
has alluded to or, you know, explained any kind of feud that has happened. Including
Omar Sykes himself. * * * Seems like he wanted to distance himself from the
investigation.”
E. Trial court’s decision
{¶ 31} After hearing Conklin’s testimony, the trial court determined that Williams
should be held without bail pursuant to R.C. 2937.222. It found that the state proved by
11.
clear and convincing evidence that (1) the proof was evident and the presumption great
that Williams committed the crimes of murder, attempted murder, felonious assault, and
discharge of a firearm on or near a prohibited premises, (2) Williams “poses a substantial
risk of serious physical harm to both the community at large and to the surviving victim
in this case due to the nature of these offenses and the lengths he was, seemingly, willing
to go to perpetrate this offense[,]” and (3) no release conditions would reasonably assure
the safety of M.S. and the community. The court noted that “[s]ince he was 15, Mr.
Williams has been in and out of different custodial settings, and it’s evidenced by the
timeline that was placed into evidence today by the State of Ohio, he continues to present
a great danger to the safety of this community.” In addition to ordering Williams held
without bail, the trial court ordered that Williams have no contact with M.S. or any of
N.S. and M.S.’s family members.
{¶ 32} On January 6, 2022, the trial court filed a judgment entry memorializing its
decision on bail. In the entry, the court confirmed that it considered all the available
information regarding the factors in R.C. 2937.222(C) and found that the state proved by
clear and convincing evidence that (1) “the proof is evident and the presumption great
that [Williams] committed * * *” murder, first-degree attempted aggravated murder, and
second-degree felonious assault; (2) that Williams posed a substantial risk of serious
physical harm to M.S. “due to the nature of these offenses and the lengths he was
seemingly willing to go to perpetrate these offenses”; and (3) no release conditions would
12.
“reasonably assure the safety of the surviving victim and of our community.” The court
also ordered that Williams have no contact with M.S. or N.S. and M.S.’s family.
{¶ 33} Williams now appeals, raising three assignments of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING MR. WILLIAMS
HELD WITHOUT BAIL BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO FIND THAT MR. WILLIAMS COMMITTED THE
OFFENSES HEREIN.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING MR. WILLIAMS
HELD WITHOUT BAIL BECAUSE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE THAT MR. WILLIAMS POSED A SUBSTANTIAL RISK
OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM TO ANY PERSON OR THE
COMMUNITY.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING MR.
WILLIAMS HELD WITHOUT BAIL BECAUSE THERE WAS
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO FIND THAT NO RELEASE
CONDITIONS WOULD REASONABLY ASSURE THE SAFETY OF A
PARTICULAR PERSON OR THE COMMUNITY.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 34} In his assignments of error, Williams argues that the trial court erred in
denying him bail because the state failed to present clear and convincing evidence that
13.
Williams committed the charged offenses, that he posed a substantial risk of serious
physical harm to any person or the community, and that no release conditions would
reasonably assure the safety of a person or the community. He contends that the state
failed to present sufficient evidence to identify him as the perpetrator of these crimes
because the suspect’s face cannot be seen in any of the security camera footage, there was
no evidence that Williams owned or possessed any firearms, and the state did not present
any evidence (beyond Conklin’s testimony) regarding ownership of the black Focus seen
in the security footage. He also argues that, without sufficient evidence of his identity as
one of the perpetrators, his criminal record is insufficient to support the trial court’s
findings that he poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to M.S. and that no
release conditions would reasonably assure the safety of M.S. and the community.
{¶ 35} The state responds that there was sufficient evidence supporting each of the
trial court’s findings. It argues that (1) Conklin’s testimony regarding the security
camera videos, the matching shell casings from the shooting in this case and the June 16
shooting at Williams’s house, and evidence of a feud between Williams and a close
friend of N.S. and M.S.’s family supports the trial court’s finding on the first element of
the statute; (2) the injuries to the victims, the shooting happening in an urban area,
Williams being on community control at the time, and Williams apparently being
motivated by revenge support the court’s findings on the second element; and (3)
Williams’s “unwillingness or inability to abide by law [sic] even while under court
14.
supervision, the vulnerabilities of electronic monitoring * * *[,]” and the apparent feud
between Williams and Sykes support the court’s findings on the third element.
A. Denial of bail
{¶ 36} Under R.C. 2937.222, a trial court may deny bail to a defendant accused of
certain serious felonies, including murder or a first- or second-degree felony, after
holding a hearing and making certain findings. R.C. 2937.222(A), (B). Specifically, the
trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that (1) “the proof is evident or the
presumption great * * *” that the defendant committed the serious felonies he was
charged with, (2) the defendant “poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to any
person or to the community, * * *” and (3) “no release conditions will reasonably assure
the safety of that person and the community.” R.C. 2937.222(B). Clear and convincing
evidence is more than “a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of
such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which
will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts
sought to be established.” State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59
N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22, quoting Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954),
paragraph three of the syllabus.
{¶ 37} In deciding whether the defendant poses a substantial risk of serious
physical harm and whether any release conditions can assure safety, the trial court is
required to consider “all available information” about:
15.
(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including
whether the offense is an offense of violence or involves alcohol or a drug
of abuse;
(2) The weight of the evidence against the accused;
(3) The history and characteristics of the accused, including, but not
limited to, both of the following:
(a) The character, physical and mental condition, family ties,
employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community,
community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, and
criminal history of the accused;
(b) Whether, at the time of the current alleged offense or at the time
of the arrest of the accused, the accused was on probation, parole, post-
release control, or other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or
completion of sentence for the commission of an offense under the laws of
this state, another state, or the United States or under a municipal
ordinance.
(4) The nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that would be posed by the person’s release.
R.C. 2937.222(C).
16.
{¶ 38} We review a trial court’s order denying bail under R.C. 2937.222 to
determine if there was “‘sufficient evidence presented by which the [trial] court could
have formed a firm belief or conviction in support of its finding[s].’” (Brackets sic.)
State v. Knowles, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-22-1040, 2022-Ohio-3264, ¶ 22, quoting State v.
Blackshear, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-1141, 2022-Ohio-230, ¶ 13; and citing State v.
Brown, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-06-025, 2006-Ohio-3377, ¶ 25; see also State v. Sowders, 1st
Dist. Hamilton No. C-220114, 2022-Ohio-2401, ¶ 28 (The standard of review for a trial
court’s findings under R.C. 2937.222 is whether “the trial court had sufficient evidence
before it to satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard.”).2
B. The presumption is great that Williams committed the offenses charged.
{¶ 39} In his first assignment of error, Williams argues that the state’s evidence
was insufficient to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the proof was evident or
2
We recognize that the standard of review in these cases is far from settled among Ohio’s
appellate districts. See Blackshear at ¶ 13-14, citing State v. Henderson, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 16AP-870, 2017-Ohio-2678, ¶ 5 (review for an abuse of discretion); State v.
Foster, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 08AP-523, 2008-Ohio-3525, ¶ 6 (same); State v. Urso,
11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2010-T-0042, 2010-Ohio-2151, ¶ 47 (review using a mixed
standard of review, similar to motions to suppress); State v. Mitchell, 2019-Ohio-2465,
139 N.E.3d 556, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.) (applying all three standards of review and “finding
consistent results * * *”); State v. Hawkins, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109097, 2019-Ohio-
5132, ¶ 47 (applying all three standards of review and “finding consistent results * * *”);
and State v. Jackson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110621, 2021-Ohio-4320, ¶ 40 (same).
Although we reviewed the trial court’s decision in Blackshear under all three standards of
review, Blackshear at ¶ 25, we determined in Knowles that such extensive inquiry is
unnecessary. Knowles at ¶ 22.
17.
the presumption great that Williams committed the offenses charged in this case. We
disagree.
{¶ 40} At the hearing, the state presented evidence—in the form of Conklin’s
testimony—that a person in “a gray hoodie, * * * black shorts [with] a white stripe with a
little bit of red going down the side of the shorts, and * * * bright white tennis shoes”
walked out of Williams’s house and got into a black Ford Focus that was registered to
Williams’s mother. Based on the testimony, it seemed unlikely that anyone else was in
the car. The same car drove down Elm Street past Austin—where N.S. and M.S. are seen
on the video playing basketball in front of their house—turned around in an alley, drove
back past Austin on Elm, paused briefly when it passed Austin to “watch[] the boys
playing basketball[,]” then drove around the block to park on Moss Street. After parking
the car on Moss, the same person in a gray hoodie and black shorts gets out of the same
black Focus and walks down Elm toward Austin. Although the person in the gray hoodie
goes out of the cameras’ views once the suspects get to the corner of Austin and Elm, the
second, unidentified suspect is clearly visible on video raising a gun and firing at N.S.
and M.S. Following the shooting, the same person in a gray hoodie parks the same black
Focus in front of Williams’s house on Mayville and goes back into the house.
{¶ 41} In addition to this testimony about the security videos, Conklin said that his
review of map routes from Williams’s house to the house on Austin showed an average
drive time of three to four minutes, which was consistent with the timestamps on the
18.
videos and the time it took the people who left Mayville to get to and from Austin in the
videos. Two days after the August 20 shooting, someone shot at Williams’s house.
Responding officers saw Williams wearing shorts that Conklin described as the “same
shorts as seen in the video from the shooting.” They also saw a pair of “bright white
tennis shoes” on the floor near where Williams was sitting.
{¶ 42} Conklin also testified that the TPD had matched shell casings from one of
the two guns used in the August 20 shooting to shell casings found in front of Williams’s
house on Mayville in June 2021 after two men from inside the house returned fire when
someone outside shot at the house. Although the gun was connected to Williams’s home,
it was undisputed that Williams was incarcerated at the time of the June 2021 shooting
incident. There was also some evidence of a feud between Williams and Sykes, and that
Sykes was close to N.S. and M.S.’s family, which was supported by the Crime Stopper
tipster who identified Williams as one of the shooters reporting that Williams shot the
victims as “retaliation.”
{¶ 43} Sufficient evidence to support a trial court’s firm belief or conviction of a
great presumption of a defendant’s guilt exists when the evidence presented, if believed,
strongly suggests that the defendant is guilty of the crimes charged. See State v. Burney,
10th Dist. Franklin Nos. 14AP-354 and 14AP-356, 2014-Ohio-2622, ¶ 21. A trial court
can make reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at the hearing to support its
19.
findings regarding a great presumption of the defendant’s guilt. See Brown, 6th Dist.
Erie No. E-06-025, 2006-Ohio-3377, at ¶ 33.
{¶ 44} Here, if the evidence that Conklin testified to is believed, it strongly
suggests that Williams was one of the two men who shot N.S. and M.S. Williams’s
arguments are all rooted in a claimed lack of evidence identifying him as one of the
people involved in the August 20 shooting. However, Conklin’s testimony was sufficient
to establish Williams’s identity, at least circumstantially, by clear and convincing
evidence. Thus, we conclude that the trial court had before it sufficient evidence from
which it could have formed a firm belief or conviction in support of its findings, i.e.,
evidence sufficient to satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard. Knowles, 6th Dist.
Lucas No. L-22-1040, 2022-Ohio-3264, at ¶ 22; Sowders, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-
220114, 2022-Ohio-2401, at ¶ 28.
{¶ 45} Williams’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
C. Williams poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm to M.S.
{¶ 46} In his second assignment of error, Williams argues that there was not
sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings that he poses a substantial risk of
serious physical harm to M.S. We disagree.
{¶ 47} In addition to the testimony outlined in the first assignment of error,
Conklin testified that Williams was adjudicated delinquent of rape and aggravated
burglary with a firearm when he was 13 years old; less than two months after being
20.
released from serving five years in DYS, and while he was on aftercare, Williams was
arrested for drug possession while having a gun on him; Williams was sent to CTF as part
of his community control sentence in the drug possession case, and was released from
CTF only two days before N.S and M.S. were shot; a month after the shooting, Williams
was pulled over, and police found a loaded gun in the car (partially concealed under a
passenger’s legs) and a baggie of suspected cocaine in Williams’s pocket; and a search of
Williams’s home found four guns.
{¶ 48} Taken together, this testimony shows that Williams not only continues to
commit crimes while he is under court-ordered supervision for past offenses, but that he
tends to reoffend within a very short period of time after his release from confinement. It
also shows that Williams has access to guns. Combined with the evidence that N.S. and
M.S. were shot as part of a feud between Williams and Sykes, we find that the trial court
had before it sufficient evidence from which it could have formed a firm belief or
conviction that M.S. was at a substantial risk of serious physical harm if Williams were
granted bail, and the court’s decision was supported by evidence sufficient to satisfy the
clear-and-convincing standard. Knowles at ¶ 22; Sowders at ¶ 28.
{¶ 49} Williams’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
21.
D. No release conditions will reasonably assure
the safety of M.S. and the community.
{¶ 50} Finally, in his third assignment of error, Williams argues that there was not
sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that no release conditions would
reasonably assure the safety of M.S. and the community. Again, we disagree.
{¶ 51} In addition to his testimony about Williams’s apparently short recidivism
time, his seemingly easy access to guns, and his apparent feud with Sykes, Conklin
testified that Lucas County’s electronic monitoring system is not foolproof. Those being
monitored can remove their monitoring units, the TPD is not responsible for the
electronic monitoring system, the system is not monitored around the clock, the TPD is
not notified immediately when someone removes their monitor, and a person who
removes their monitor could be out in the community for an extended period of time
before the police find out about it.
{¶ 52} Based on this evidence, we find that the trial court had before it sufficient
evidence from which it could have formed a firm belief or conviction that no release
conditions would reasonably assure the safety of M.S. or the community, and the court’s
decision was supported by evidence sufficient to satisfy the clear-and-convincing
standard. Knowles at ¶ 22; Sowders at ¶ 28.
{¶ 53} Williams’s third assignment of error is not well-taken.
22.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 54} For the foregoing reasons, the January 6, 2022 judgment of the Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Williams is ordered to pay the costs of this
appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
23.