[Cite as State v. Soliday, 2012-Ohio-4481.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
: Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
-vs- :
: Case No. 2011CA00280
ANDREW J. SOLIDAY :
:
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2011CR1239
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 24, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant: For Appellee:
GEORGE URBAN JOHN D. FERRERO, JR.
116 Cleveland Ave. NW, Suite 808 STARK COUNTY PROSECUTOR
Canton, OH 44702 RENEE M. WATSON
110 Central Plaza South, Suite 510
Canton, OH 44702-1413
[Cite as State v. Soliday, 2012-Ohio-4481.]
Delaney, J.
{¶1} Appellant Andrew J. Soliday appeals from the judgment entries of
conviction and sentence entered in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.
Appellee is the state of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} This case arose on August 14, 2011 in the 1600 block of Bryan Ave.
S.W. where appellant struck victim Tiffany Trescott with his vehicle and dragged her
down the road. Tiffany later died of her injuries.
Altercation at the Voodoo Bar
{¶3} Tiffany was married to Joshua Trescott. On the evening of August 14,
they planned to go out with friends to celebrate an impending move out-of-state.
Together with their friends Lindsey Cathey, Charity Slaton (sister of Joshua Trescott),
Bianca Harper, and Chris Scott, the Trescotts rode together to “the Voodoo,” a bar on
Navarre Road S.W. The bar was a short distance from the Trescotts’ residence on
Bryan Ave. S.W.
{¶4} While at the bar, Charity Slaton met appellant and his friend Karrenton
Ridley. Charity and appellant danced together and appellant commented to Joshua
Trescott that he liked his sister. Lindsey Cathey later testified appellant and Ridley
tried to get Cathey and Charity Slaton to come home with them but the women
refused, leading to a dispute between appellant, Ridley, and the Trescott group.
{¶5} Chris Scott and Ridley got into a fight and Scott punched Ridley. After
the punch, both groups were led out of the bar by security staff.
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 3
{¶6} Appellant would later claim he and Charity made plans to “hook up” later
after she drove home with the Trescotts, but Charity denied making plans with
appellant. Lindsay Cathey also denied making any plans to meet appellant and Ridley
later.
{¶7} In the bar parking lot, appellant approached Joshua Trescott and tried to
shake his hand. Trescott said “Let it go, we’ll talk later.” Security personnel called by
appellee at trial noted appellant kept apologizing to the Trescott group, but Ridley was
more upset and threatening, stating he was going to “take care of this later.”
{¶8} Joshua Trescott said “Everyone who came here with me, leaves with
me,” and the group got back into their vehicle. The group headed back in the direction
of the Trescott residence with Tiffany driving.
Appellant Follows the Trescott Group Home
{¶9} When they stopped at a stop sign, Joshua Trescott noticed a car coming
up behind them, a Chevy Blazer or Jimmy, but didn’t recognize the car. Tiffany pulled
their vehicle partly into their driveway and jumped out, yelling because the other
vehicle almost struck them.
{¶10} The other vehicle now pulled alongside the Trescott vehicle. Its
occupants were appellant, who was driving, and Ridley, who had earlier fought with
Chris Scott.
{¶11} Tiffany walked over to appellant’s car, slammed her hands on the hood,
and said something to the effect of “Are you kidding me?” The rest of the Trescott
group got out of their vehicle. Chris Scott opened appellant’s car door and began
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 4
punching appellant. Tiffany went around the front of appellant’s vehicle to try to stop
him, yelling “No, Chris, don’t.” Ridley was also punched.
Appellant Hits the Gas and Strikes Tiffany Trescott
{¶12} When Tiffany was in front of appellant’s vehicle, he hit the gas.
Everyone was screaming. Appellant drove a short distance down the road with Tiffany
on the front of the truck. Appellant stopped and then drove forward again, dragging
Tiffany down the street. Her husband and friends ran after the truck, screaming for
appellant to stop. Appellant struck a depression in the brick roadway and Tiffany
came out from under the truck, into the roadway.
{¶13} Tiffany lay writhing in the roadway. Her friends told her to lie still until
help could arrive. Someone in the Trescott group called 911.
{¶14} Appellant stopped at the stop sign at the end of the road and then drove
off. He did not return to the scene. John Trescott and Chris Scott jumped into
separate vehicles and drove off to look for appellant but did not find him.
The Neighbor’s Account
{¶15} Tabitha Martin is a neighbor of the Trescotts and was not involved in the
incident. She was awakened late at night on August 14 by yelling in the street. She
looked out her window and saw a black vehicle with someone standing in front of it.
As she lay back down, she realized the vehicle had struck the person in front of it, and
she looked back out the window in time to see the vehicle stop, peel out, and drive
forward again. Martin testified the victim was under the vehicle because as the
vehicle drove down the street, she saw the victim roll out from underneath it.
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 5
Investigation and Autopsy
{¶16} Ptl. David Grant was dispatched to the scene and discovered Tiffany in
the middle of the roadway, conscious but nonresponsive. Ptl. Grant recovered a
muffler from the roadway as evidence. No other vehicle parts were present; and there
were no skid or tire marks.
{¶17} The autopsy of Tiffany Trescott revealed she was 5’4 and weighed 250
pounds. She had significant external injuries consistent with a vehicle-pedestrian
collision: abrasions, scrapes, and a fractured leg. The pathologist noted parallel
marks on the victim’s skin indicating a car had rolled over her. Tiffany’s internal
injuries included damaged organs and fractured ribs. She also suffered a pulmonary
contusion and bleeding in her pelvis. The pathologist noted her internal injuries were
consistent with the wheel of a vehicle rolling over her. Her specific cause of death
was multiple blunt-impact injuries to the head, neck, and extremities as a result of
being struck and run over by a motor vehicle.
{¶18} The muffler from the vehicle driven by appellant was tested for physical
evidence. Personnel from the Stark County Crime Lab discovered human hair and
traces of D.N.A. belonging to Tiffany Trescott on the muffler.
{¶19} Detectives from the Canton Police Department investigated the incident.
Detectives met with witnesses at Aultman Hospital and took their statements; the
Trescott group identified appellant as the suspect and provided his cell phone number.
Detectives did not find appellant at his residence but did locate the Chevy Blazer he
drove the night of the incident. Its muffler was missing and there was an indentation in
the windshield.
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 6
{¶20} Detectives also checked appellant’s driving status through the Bureau of
Motor Vehicles and discovered his license was suspended. He had no driving
privileges on August 14, 2011.
Appellant’s Account
{¶21} Appellant testified in his own defense at trial. He admitted he never
obtained a driver’s license and had no privileges to drive on the night of August 14,
2011. Nevertheless, he drove a 1988 Chevy Blazer he was allegedly buying from a
friend. Appellant and his friend Ridley went to the Voodoo bar and met Charity Slaton;
the two danced together and appellant intended to go home with her. Appellant
claimed he asked Charity’s brother, John Trescott, if he could take Charity home and
Trescott said no. Charity then allegedly told appellant to follow the group home.
{¶22} Appellant said he was “scared” but nonetheless followed the group home
with the intention of picking up Charity. He saw the Trescott vehicle pull partway into
the driveway, and then he saw the reverse lights come on as though the vehicle was
backing up. At that point, Chris Scott and John Trescott got out of the vehicle and
came over to appellant’s truck. Appellant said they were there to pick up Charity, but
Trescott and Scott allegedly punched appellant and Ridley repeatedly through the
open windows of the vehicle.
{¶23} Appellant said the Trescott group was screaming “We’re going to kill
you,” and Ridley told him to take off. He claimed Ridley screamed “Go, bro, go, bro.”
When someone opened appellant’s door to pull him out of the vehicle, appellant hit the
gas and took off.
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 7
{¶24} Appellant claimed he drove straight to the stop sign, stopped, looked,
and turned left. He drove home without incident, spoke to his roommate, and went to
sleep, completely unaware he struck anyone with his vehicle.
{¶25} When appellant received calls from Canton Police stating there had been
an accident, he thought the Trescott group was trying to “lure” him out to continue the
fight. He finally made contact with a detective and when he learned someone had
been hurt, said he would obtain counsel and turn himself in.
{¶26} Appellant insisted he did not follow the Trescott vehicle that night looking
for a confrontation. He never saw anyone fly over the hood of the truck and was not
aware he struck anyone. He said the indentation in the Blazer’s windshield was
already there before the incident and he had looked the vehicle over and saw no sign
he struck anyone.
Indictment, Trial, Conviction, and Sentence
{¶27} Appellant was charged by indictment with one count of aggravated
vehicular homicide [R.C. 2903.06(A)(2)(a)]; one count of failure to stop after an
accident [R.C. 4549.02]; and one count of driving under suspension [R.C. 4510.11(A)].
Appellant entered pleas of not guilty and the case proceeded to trial by jury. Appellant
moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of appellee’s evidence and at the close of
all of the evidence; the motions were overruled.
{¶28} Appellant was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced
appellant to a prison term of eight years on the count of aggravated vehicular
homicide and two terms of six months each on the counts of driving under suspension
and failing to stop after an accident.
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 8
{¶29} Appellant now appeals from the judgment entries of his conviction and
sentence.
{¶30} Appellant raises two Assignments of Error:
{¶31} “I. APPELLANT’S CONVICTIONS WAS (sic) AGAINST THE MANIFEST
WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE.”
{¶32} “II. APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND
OF (sic) ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND
ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 10 AND 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE HIS
TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.”
I.
{¶33} In his first assignment of error, appellant claims his convictions for
aggravated vehicular homicide and failure to stop after an accident are against the
manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We disagree.
{¶34} The legal concepts of sufficiency of the evidence and weight of the
evidence are both quantitatively and qualitatively different. State v. Thompkins, 78
Ohio St.3d 380, 1997-Ohio-52, 678 N.E.2d 541, paragraph two of the syllabus. The
standard of review for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is set forth in
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 574 N.E.2d 492 (1991) at paragraph two of the
syllabus, in which the Ohio Supreme Court held, “An appellate court’s function when
reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is to examine
the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would
convince the average mind of the defendant’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 9
relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the
crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
{¶35} In determining whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the
evidence, the court of appeals functions as the “thirteenth juror,” and after “reviewing
the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the
credibility of witnesses and determines whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence,
the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the
conviction must be overturned and a new trial ordered.” State v. Thompkins, supra, at
387, 678 N.E.2d 541. Reversing a conviction as being against the manifest weight of
the evidence and ordering a new trial should be reserved for only the “exceptional
case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction.” Id.
{¶36} Appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated vehicular homicide
pursuant to R.C. 2903.06(A)(2)(a) which states in pertinent part: “No person, while
operating * * * a motor vehicle, * * * shall cause the death of another * * * recklessly.”
{¶37} Appellant’s argument is premised upon the element of recklessness. He
asserts the evidence is insufficient to establish he acted with the requisite mental state
of recklessness, defined in R.C. 2901.22(C) as follows: “A person acts recklessly
when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a
known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or be of a certain nature.
A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to
the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are
likely to exist.”
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 10
{¶38} Appellant argues he was being attacked by the Trescott group when he
stepped on the gas, and the death of Tiffany Trescott was therefore accidental.
However, even assuming appellant was assaulted by one or more members of the
Trescott group after they pulled alongside the Trescott vehicle, appellant was in a
situation of his own creation. As the driver of the vehicle, without driving privileges, he
followed the Trescott group home under incendiary circumstances. Appellant was the
only witness to insist his intention was merely to “hook up” with one of the women in
the group. Other witnesses testified no such plans existed, and moreover that
appellant’s passenger had made threatening comments in the bar parking lot.
{¶39} Nevertheless, once appellant was at the scene on Bryan Avenue, he
chose to hit the gas and drive forward when at least one person was in the immediate
vicinity of his vehicle. Appellant testified he drove away with his hands over his face.
Even by that admission appellant’s conduct was reckless. While appellant insists he
never saw Tiffany and did not realize he struck her, we conclude the jury could
reasonably find otherwise. Appellant didn’t strike the victim once and drive off; the
physical evidence, and testimony of eyewitnesses, established he knocked her down,
she was caught under the vehicle, and he actually drove over her.
{¶40} The record is replete with evidence of appellant’s recklessness.
Appellant’s conviction for aggravated vehicular homicide is supported by sufficient
evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶41} Appellant similarly argues his conviction for failure to stop after an
accident is not supported by sufficient evidence and is against the manifest weight of
the evidence essentially because appellant did not know he struck anyone and even if
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 11
he did know, Chris Scott and Joshua Trescott were pursuing him and he couldn’t be
expected to stop.
{¶42} To prove appellant failed to stop after an accident, appellee was required
to prove that while driving a motor vehicle, appellant was involved in a collision
involving persons or property and having knowledge of the collision, failed to
immediately stop and remain at the scene, to provide his information to any person
injured, and failed to immediately notify the nearest police authority. R.C. 4549.02.
{¶43} Appellant points to no specific evidence in the record to establish the jury
lost its way, nor does he identify how appellee’s evidence of failure to stop after an
accident was insufficient. His inference that he was unaware he struck the victim is
not credible in light of the fact that the victim was 5’4, weighed 250 pounds, and
suffered rollover injuries. Even if appellant was aware of the collision but was afraid to
stop because of threats by the Trescott group, he does not explain why he failed to
report the collision to the nearest police authority. In short, we have reviewed the
record and find appellant’s conviction for failure to stop after an accident is fully
supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
{¶44} Appellant’s first assignment of error is therefore overruled.
II.
{¶45} In his second assignment of error, appellant claims he received
ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We disagree.
{¶46} To succeed on a claim of ineffectiveness, a defendant must satisfy a
two-prong test. Initially, a defendant must show that trial counsel acted incompetently.
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 12
See, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). In assessing
such claims, “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls
within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant
must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action
‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” Id. at 689, citing Michel v. Louisiana, 350
U.S. 91, 101, 76 S.Ct. 158 (1955).
{¶47} “There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given
case. Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in
the same way.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. The question is whether counsel acted
“outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 690.
{¶48} Even if a defendant shows that counsel was incompetent, the defendant
must then satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test. Under this “actual prejudice”
prong, the defendant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been
different.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
{¶49} Appellant asserts defense trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
request a jury instruction of self-defense. Under Ohio law, self-defense is an
affirmative defense. State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 249, 551 N.E.2d 1279
(1990). A defendant must meet the burden of going forward with evidence of a nature
and quality sufficient to raise an affirmative defense. See R.C. 2901.05; State v.
Cross, 58 Ohio St.2d 482, fn. 5, 391 N.E.2d 319 (1979); State v. Abner, 55 Ohio St.2d
251, 379 N.E.2d 228 (1978). The trial court, as a matter of law, cannot give a jury
instruction on an affirmative defense if a defendant fails to meet this burden. See
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 13
Cross at fn. 5; Abner at 253-254, 379 N.E.2d 228; State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d 15,
20, 381 N.E.2d 195 (1978).
{¶50} Defendants asserting self-defense must establish specific elements. In
Williford, the Ohio Supreme Court held:
To establish self-defense, the defendant must show ‘ * * * (1) * * * [he] was not
at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) * * * [he] has [sic] a
bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm
and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of * * *
force; and (3) * * * [he] must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the
danger. * * * ’ The defendant is privileged to use that force which is reasonably
necessary to repel the attack. ‘If the defendant fails to prove any one of these
elements by a preponderance of the evidence he has failed to demonstrate that
he acted in self-defense.’ (Citations omitted and emphasis in original.)
State v. Williford, 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 249, 551 N.E.2d 1279 (1990).
{¶51} In the instant case, an instruction on self-defense would have been
inconsistent with appellant’s defense as we understand it from the record. Appellant
testified on his own behalf and claimed to have no knowledge whatsoever that he
struck and dragged Tiffany Trescott. He claimed his act of stepping on the gas and
driving away from the scene was in response to Ridley’s yelling “Go, bro, go” and both
of them being pummeled by members of the Trescott group. Appellant does not
explain how the elements of self-defense apply to this scenario, other than to say
appellant was not at fault in creating the situation. We disagree with this premise
because it was appellant who followed the group to their residence and pulled in
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 14
alongside their vehicle. Moreover, when he stepped on the gas, by his testimony
appellant was escaping the situation, not using his vehicle as force reasonably
necessary to repel the attack.
{¶52} Appellant failed to meet his burden to show evidence of possible self-
defense. Having failed to meet this burden, the trial court had no basis to give an
instruction on self-defense even if appellant’s counsel had requested it. Therefore,
counsel did not err in failing to request a jury instruction on self-defense because there
was insufficient evidence to merit such a request.
{¶53} Accordingly, appellant fails to establish that his counsel's performance
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's performance
prejudiced his ability to receive a fair trial.
{¶54} Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.
Stark County, Case No. 2011CA00280 15
{¶55} Appellant’s two assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of
the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed.
By: Delaney, P.J.
Gwin, J. and
Edwards, J. concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
PAD:kgb
[Cite as State v. Soliday, 2012-Ohio-4481.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
ANDREW J. SOLIDAY :
:
: Case No. 2011CA00280
Defendant-Appellant :
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, the judgment of the
Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
State v. Soliday
Combined Opinion