State v. Hernandez

2026 Ohio 679
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 27, 2026
DocketL-24-1232
StatusPublished

This text of 2026 Ohio 679 (State v. Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Hernandez, 2026 Ohio 679 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Hernandez, 2026-Ohio-679.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. {48}L-24-1232

Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202302553

v.

Antonio Hernandez, Jr. DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: February 27, 2026

*****

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and, Randy L. Meyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Ronnie L. Wingate, for appellant.

***** MAYLE, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Antonio Hernandez Jr., appeals the August 30, 2024 judgment of

the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to 18 years to life in prison.

For the following reasons, we affirm.

I. Background and Facts

{¶ 2} This case arose from a December 18, 2022 shooting at a trailer on Moss

Creek in Washington Township, Lucas County, Ohio. After being bound over from the

juvenile court, Hernandez (who was 17 years old at the time) was charged with one count each of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), an unclassified felony (count 1); murder

in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B), an unclassified felony (count 2); and felonious assault in

violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a second-degree felony (count 3). Each charge carried a

three-year firearm specification under R.C. 2941.145(A).

{¶ 3} Hernandez’s case was tried to a jury. At trial, the State presented the

testimony of 18 witnesses. Hernandez testified in his own behalf. The following

evidence was adduced at trial.

A. State’s case

1. Mother’s testimony

{¶ 4} Shawnta, the mother of victim K.C., testified that K.C. was 18 when she

died. She was in an off-and-on relationship with Zoey at the time. She and Zoey had

moved in together about 30 days before her death. Shawnta described K.C. as “quiet.

She never really liked a crowd. She didn’t do parties and gatherings.”

{¶ 5} On cross-examination, Shawnta said that K.C. was in love with Zoey.

Shawnta knew that Zoey was unfaithful to K.C., that they were about to break up, and

that K.C. was coming home because of Zoey. She did not know who Zoey was being

unfaithful with.

{¶ 6} On redirect, Shawnta explained that K.C. knew of Zoey’s infidelity and

never reacted violently to it. Instead, she said that “they had miscommunication and

[K.C.] wants to leave and Zoey wants her to come back.” K.C. would go back to Zoey

after these incidents.

2. 2. Officers’ testimony

{¶ 7} Lieutenant Phil Cook of the Toledo Police Department testified that he is

responsible for retrieving 911 calls and call records. He presented the records of two 911

calls from the Moss Creek trailer.

{¶ 8} In the first call, an agitated female caller tells the operator that she needs an

ambulance because her girlfriend was just shot. She did not know who shot her

girlfriend. She tells the operator that the girlfriend has a bullet in her chest and is

bleeding out. She repeatedly asks for an ambulance and paramedics and asks where help

is.

{¶ 9} In the second call, a caller who identifies herself as Savannah tells the

operator that a shooting happened at her house earlier and clothes belonging to Antonio

Hernandez, the person who shot her sister’s girlfriend, were still at her house. She said

that he changed out of his clothes so they would not be able to give a description of the

clothes that he was wearing.

{¶ 10} TPD officer Brandon Spinner was the first officer to arrive on the scene in

response to the 911 call. When he first arrived, he scanned the area to see if the suspect

was still on the scene but did not see anyone. Inside the trailer, he found approximately

six people, including K.C. The people inside were “hysterical” and “loud” and some

were crying. Spinner found K.C. in a bedroom between the bed and the wall. He did not

see anything, including any weapons, in her hands or around her on the ground. When he

pulled her out from between the bed and the wall, he could see her gunshot wound. He

administered first aid to K.C. while he waited for paramedics to arrive. His primary

3. concern when he first entered the residence was attending to K.C. He moved her so that

he could render treatment.

{¶ 11} After the paramedics arrived, Spinner helped gather information on scene.

He eventually rode to the hospital with K.C. in the ambulance and stayed at the hospital

until officers from Washington Township arrived.

{¶ 12} On cross-examination, Spinner said that he arrived at the trailer

approximately three minutes after receiving the dispatch. He could not remember what

information he gathered from the witnesses. He recalled seeing a young woman who was

“hysterical” and concerned about her girlfriend being shot but did not recall noticing any

blood on her.

{¶ 13} TPD officer Michael Rickard testified that he and his partner, officer

Daniel Radwanski, responded to a 911 call for a “shot person.” They arrived after

Spinner. When he got to the trailer, people inside directed him to the bedroom where

K.C. was lying on the floor between the wall and the bed. He saw Spinner attempting to

administer first aid and helped Spinner with his efforts. K.C. had a pulse while they

waited for paramedics, and Rickard’s primary concern was maintaining her condition

until EMS arrived.

{¶ 14} Once EMS took over K.C.’s care, Rickard helped secure the scene, assisted

with detaining witnesses, gathered information, and searched for evidence. He checked

the walls for bullet holes and the floor around the bed for bullet fragments or other

evidence, but he did not find anything. He did not see shell casings, a firearm, or a knife

on or around K.C. or in the bedroom. A man on scene, later identified as Anthony

4. Strunk, told Rickard that the suspect “was a black dude,” but no one provided

information about the suspect’s whereabouts. As far as he heard, no one mentioned a

knife. He characterized the trailer occupants’ demeanors as upset and recalled that

Savannah appeared upset and somewhat erratic.

{¶ 15} Rickard’s body camera video footage from that night shows a frantic Zoey

begging officers to help her girlfriend. When one of the officers asks where the gun is,

Zoey responds, “I don’t know. The gun’s gone. The gun’s gone. He ran off.” When an

officer asks her who ran off, she says, “I don’t know who ran off.” Then Strunk says, “It

was a black man, bro.” Zoey continues begging and screaming for help until Strunk

physically removes her from the bedroom. After that, the video shows the officers

rendering first aid to K.C. The officers note that they have no suspect information. After

a couple of minutes, Rickard walks around the rest of the trailer. He eventually walks

outside where other officers are talking to Savannah. She tells the officers that she was in

the other bedroom with her baby trying to get him back to sleep when she heard a bang

and then heard Zoey say that her girlfriend was shot. She claims that she did not know

what happened from that point because she was in the second bedroom with the baby.

When the officers ask if anyone who was there earlier is no longer present, she asks if

“Tonio,” the “Hispanic kid,” is there. When the officers say that he is not, Savannah

explains that she did not want Strunk to know that she told them because he might hurt

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Martin
485 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1983)
State v. Sheets
152 N.E. 664 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1926)
State v. Stevenson
2018 Ohio 5140 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)
State v. Walker
2021 Ohio 2037 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
State v. Barker
2022 Ohio 3756 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
State v. Messenger
2022 Ohio 4562 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2022)
State v. Rydarowicz
2023 Ohio 916 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Hughkeith
2023 Ohio 1217 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Lane
2023 Ohio 1305 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Woods
2023 Ohio 3549 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Tuggle
2023 Ohio 3965 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Lathan
2024 Ohio 2514 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Fisher
2024 Ohio 5520 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Links
2025 Ohio 264 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
State v. Weemes
2025 Ohio 2319 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2026 Ohio 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hernandez-ohioctapp-2026.