[Cite as State v. Mosley, 2025-Ohio-4448.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NOS. C-240574 C-240575 Plaintiff-Appellee, : TRIAL NOS. B-2203078 B-2305890 vs. :
CHARLES MOSLEY, :
Defendant-Appellant. : JUDGMENT ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the appeals, the record, and the briefs. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for these appeals, allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24. The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial court for execution under App.R. 27.
To the clerk: Enter upon the journal of the court on 9/24/2025 per order of the court.
By:_______________________ Administrative Judge [Cite as State v. Mosley, 2025-Ohio-4448.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NOS. C-240574 C-240575 Plaintiff-Appellee, : TRIAL NOS. B-2203078 B-2305890 vs. : OPINION CHARLES MOSLEY, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: September 24, 2025
Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Judith Anton Lapp, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Timothy J. McKenna, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Charles Mosley appeals his convictions for two counts of rape,
conspiracy to commit murder, and intimidation of a witness or victim. In five
assignments of error, Mosley contends the evidence was insufficient to support the
convictions, his convictions were against the weight of the evidence, his trial counsel
was ineffective for failing to object to the consolidation of the charges for trial, the trial
court erred by admitting a 911 call, and the record did not support the imposition of
consecutive sentences. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgments of the trial
court.
Factual Background
{¶2} On July 20, 2022, Mosley was indicted for two counts of rape, two
counts of felonious assault, and one count of aggravated menacing under the case
numbered B-2203078. The victim of the charges was his former girlfriend, L.H.
Mosley pled guilty to one count of felonious assault, and the State dismissed the other
felonious-assault charge and the aggravated-menacing charge. While awaiting trial on
the rape charges, Mosley was indicted on additional charges involving L.H, including
attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and intimidation of a witness or
victim in the case numbered B-2305890. The cases were consolidated for trial with
no objection from Mosley.
{¶3} The first witness was an officer from the Reading Police Department
who was dispatched to a residence around 3:00 a.m. for a felonious assault. When he
arrived, he found L.H. sitting in a vehicle with multiple, severe injuries to her face.
L.H. told him that she was having drinks with Mosley when the two started fighting.
Mosley began beating her, hitting her in the face, and sticking his hands down her
throat. Mosley then dragged her into the bedroom and raped her. L.H. was taken to
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
the hospital.
{¶4} An Amberly Village canine police officer testified that she was called to
assist with a search warrant being served in Reading. The canine officer brought her
dog to search the apartment. When the dog was clearing the bedroom, it jumped on
the bed and discovered Mosley asleep under the covers. The canine officer testified
that the apartment was a mess with things scattered everywhere and tipped over. She
saw blood and blood-stained clothing on the floor when she entered the apartment.
{¶5} After the canine officer’s testimony, the court recessed and addressed a
discovery issue which had arisen. That morning, the prosecutor located a 911 call
made by L.H. that the State previously did not know existed. The prosecutor
acknowledged that the call had not been provided to the defense and explained that
the former prosecutor on the case had been fired. He immediately provided a copy to
defense counsel. The prosecutor requested that the court admit the call “given its
relevancy.”
{¶6} Although having no issue with the current prosecutor, defense counsel
explained that he was told a 911 call did not exist. Counsel then requested the 911 call
be excluded from evidence as a discovery violation.
{¶7} The prosecutor argued that exclusion would be the most severe
sanction, and instead, requested that the court grant defense counsel a continuance to
review the five-minute call. Defense counsel requested additional time to listen to the
call and possibly get a transcript because, “It’s an important piece of evidence as it
relates to the cross-examination of several of the upcoming witnesses.” If the court
agreed, counsel was fine to proceed in that manner.
{¶8} The court admitted the call after finding that the violation was not
willful and appeared to be inadvertent. The court further found that the 911 call merely
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
corroborated events, and L.H. would testify. As a sanction, the court said it would
allow the defense “very wide latitude on cross-examination” and a continuance if
necessary. Mosley objected for the record.
{¶9} L.H. testified that she had started dating Mosley in 2016, and he moved
in with her that year. They broke up in 2020 after they purchased a BMW. Mosley
became a different person coming home late at night and telling her to leave. After
L.H. moved out, she was unable to retrieve all of her belongings from him. Mosley had
her brother’s motorcycle, and when her brother went to get it, Mosley refused to give
it to him. L.H. and Mosley had remained friends, and occasionally went out, but the
last time they had had sexual relations was February of 2022. By May, L.H. had
stopped talking to him and responding to his texts.
{¶10} When L.H. was leaving work, Mosley called her, and she told him that
she did not want to speak with him. Later, Mosley texted her and said he was bringing
her the motorcycle and a pool stick that belonged to her. L.H. told Mosley not to come
to her home, but he said he was on his way and texted her a photo of the motorcycle
on the back seat of the car. When Mosley arrived, he wanted her to go to the liquor
store with him.
{¶11} The two went to a liquor store, and L.H. poured both of them a drink of
Jack Daniels. Mosley quickly finished his and requested another, but she refused
because he was driving too fast. They went back to her house around 11:00 p.m. While
listening to music, Mosley asked her if they were going to get back together twice, and
she told him, “No.” Then he started mumbling “WDTGS.” When L.H. asked what that
meant, Mosley responded, “We die together soon.” Immediately, L.H. told him to
leave. When Mosley stood up, L.H. saw a knife sticking out of the back of his pants.
Mosley told her that she was going to die tonight and approached her with the knife.
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
They wrestled, and L.H. got the knife and threw it to the other side of the room.
{¶12} When L.H. began hollering to get her neighbor’s attention, Mosley put
his fingers in her mouth. L.H. was unable to bite him because her top teeth had been
removed for dentures. She tried to call 911, but he took her phone and threw it. Mosley
threw her into the china cabinet. They fell to the floor, and Mosley tried to choke and
strangle her. Mosley told her, “After I kill you, I'm gonna fuck your dead body.” He
pulled her pants down, placed his penis into her vagina, and raped her. L.H. tried to
fight him, but after a while, she was too tired and told him to hurry up and kill her.
{¶13} L.H. suggested going into the bedroom, hoping Mosley would fall
asleep. Mosley had oral sex with her, and inserted his penis into her vagina. Mosley
licked her body, saying he would leave his DNA all over her dead body. During the
encounter, Mosley repeatedly threatened to burn her apartment down and shoot her
and then kill himself.
{¶14} Eventually, he fell asleep, so L.H. grabbed her jacket, keys, and phone
and went into her car and called 911. L.H. drove across the street because Mosley had
told her he had a gun in his car and was going to shoot himself after he killed her.
{¶15} During the assault, L.H. had lost a tooth and sustained injuries over her
entire body. Her hair was drenched in blood, and her face was bloody. L.H. identified
her injuries from photos that her sister had taken at the hospital. L.H. had bruising
on her face, injuries to her forehead, red eyes, and swollen lips. One of her bottom
teeth was missing. Her arm was bruised and cut from the knife.
{¶16} L.H. identified Mosley’s knife. Over objection, the State played the 911
call, and L.H. confirmed it was her voice. L.H. had driven to the apartment building
across the street and began honking her horn when she saw the Reading police vehicle.
The State also introduced three videos from L.H.’s ring camera. The first one showed
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Mosley standing by his BMW at 11:45 p.m. The second video captured Mosley’s and
L.H.’s voices at 1:00 a.m. The third video was recorded four minutes later, and Mosley
said that L.H. was going to die by his hand.
{¶17} On the night in question, Mosley had had several drinks, but L.H.
suspected he was on drugs. L.H. testified that she did not have consensual sexual
relations with him.
{¶18} After reporting the attack and later receiving messages from the FBI and
the Reading police, L.H. learned the police would be watching her home, and she saw
them around her house.
{¶19} On cross-examination, L.H. testified that she had met Mosley at the Elks
Lodge in Madisonville in 2015. They began dating three months later and maintained
a friendship after they broke up. The two texted and spoke on the phone. In 2022,
L.H. played pool with Mosley three times, and on two of those occasions, they had
sexual relations. L.H. dined with Mosley on a few occasions because he wanted to see
her granddaughter.
{¶20} L.H. was cross-examined about an interview with a police detective on
June 20, 2022. L.H. was confronted about several alleged inconsistencies between the
statements in her police interview and her in-court testimony. During the interview,
L.H. explained that at some point during the assault, she was too tired to fight, but
then something told her to find a way to escape. A picture of her deceased mother with
her church group had fallen on the floor and was next to L.H. while she was being
raped. When L.H. looked at the photo, she gathered the strength to find a way to stay
alive. L.H. had told the detective she almost gave up during the assault, but at trial,
she testified it was during the rape. L.H. explained that both happened at the same
time.
7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶21} L.H. denied telling the responding Reading officer that Mosley dragged
her into the bedroom. At the time, L.H. was distraught, and all she could remember
was the officer asking if she had been burned. L.H. remembered telling someone about
Mosley’s gun in his car, but she could not remember who. L.H. was questioned about
why she did not mention Mosley’s threat to burn down her apartment. L.H. replied,
“I didn’t think that the whole conversation that he was giving me while he was trying
to kill me was relevant to put in everything.”
{¶22} Defense counsel confronted L.H. about the differences between her
statements on the 911 call, to the responding Reading officer, to the detective who
interviewed her, and in her petition for a civil protection order. L.H. explained that
the 911 call was a distress call. But her statement to the detective occurred nine days
later when she was much calmer, and when she sought the protection order, she was
accompanied by a woman from Women Helping Women.
{¶23} L.H. testified that she was trying to do anything to get Mosley off of her
and could not remember every detail of the attack because she was just trying to
survive. L.H. further explained that she remembered what had happened, but not
necessarily in the correct order due to the distress and difficulty of the night
{¶24} The next witness was a police officer from Springfield Township who
had worked as a Reading officer two years prior. He responded to L.H.’s apartment to
assist with the execution of the search warrant. The officer authenticated 13 photos of
the apartment, including photos of the knife, bloody pants and clothing, a bloody
towel, and a wallet with Mosley’s driver’s license that were in the living room. Some
of the photos were a bit blurry because the camera was not working properly. The
officer searched Mosley’s vehicle and did not recover a gun.
{¶25} A forensic biologist from the Hamilton County Coroner’s Office Crime
8 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Lab testified that she analyzed the swabs taken from L.H. and Mosley. No sperm was
identified on the vaginal swab. L.H.’s oral swab indicated blood but no semen. The
fingernail swabs indicated blood. The right and left labia majora swabs indicated
amylase, an enzyme in saliva, and the right labia majora swab also indicated blood.
The perineum swab had no semen or blood. The left nipple swab had amylase. The
left neck swab had blood and amylase, and the right neck swab had amylase. Blood
was indicated on the underwear. The analyst got a partial DNA profile from the right
labia majora swabs that were a mixture of DNA from at least two people. L.H. was the
major profile and the minor profile had insufficient DNA to test. The major DNA
profile from the left nipple matched Mosley. None of the other swabs had enough DNA
to test.
{¶26} The lead detective on the case, formerly a Reading detective, testified
that she entered the apartment between 5:30 and 6:00 a.m. Furniture and tables and
other stuff had been knocked over. There was blood and a knife on the floor. The lead
detective took the photos, but the camera was malfunctioning. She interviewed
Mosley, and the recording was played for the jury. Mosley seemed very confused.
Mosley said he did not know what happened that night, but he denied assaulting L.H.
and insisted that he did not rape her. Mosley said the sex “must have been
consensual.” The lead detective attempted to interview L.H. on the night of the
incident, but L.H. was in and out of consciousness at the hospital.
{¶27} On cross-examination, the lead detective confirmed that no gun was
found in Mosley’s car or home, and that Mosley willingly gave a DNA sample. She also
testified that L.H. told her that she almost gave up trying to escape during the assault
and the rape.
{¶28} After Mosely had been arrested, a Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office
9 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
(“HCSO”) detective testified that she was notified by an FBI agent that a possible
murder-for-hire was being planned in the jail. The detective met with the agent and
learned that Mosley was the suspect. Next, she met with an inmate who was in the
same cell with Mosley. The detective instructed the inmate to allow Mosley to
approach him, and she placed a recording device in his pocket. The inmate recorded
Mosley from November 4 through 11.
{¶29} The State requested to play excerpts of the recordings. Mosley objected
and stated the recording should be played in its entirety. The trial court determined
that most of the recordings were irrelevant, so each party could decide which portions
to play. The first clip was the meeting with the inmate. A detective told the inmate
not to lead Mosley. The police put money on the inmate’s phone so he could call them
or make calls for Mosley, especially if Mosley tried to arrange a payment to the inmate
to kill L.H.
{¶30} The inmate was admitted to the jail on October 24, and the FBI agent
alerted the HCSO detective to the plot one week later. The following day, the HCSO
detective met with the inmate. The inmate had worked as a confidential informant for
several law enforcement agencies and officers for 20 years. The HCSO detective made
no promises to the inmate, but informed him that the prosecutor might give him case
consideration. The inmate explained how he collected information after being placed
in the cell, and how to put “money on the books.” Mosley had tried to hire the inmate
to kill his ex-girlfriend.
{¶31} The inmate admitted to being a “professional snitch” and testified that
he met Mosley in the jail when he was moved into Mosley’s cell. After the inmate
purchased and shared food with Mosley, Mosley informed him that he was in jail for
domestic violence. The inmate did not believe him because Mosley had been
10 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
incarcerated too long for a domestic-violence charge. Eventually Mosley admitted he
was charged with felonious assault but never mentioned the rape charges. Mosley kept
saying, “I need to get her gone. I want her gone, gone. I want her dead.” Mosley
mentioned a grandbaby or grandniece and did not care if the grandbaby or grandniece
were killed too. The inmate said he could do the murder if he got out, and Mosley was
going to pay him in part with the BMW.
{¶32} After a week of Mosley saying he wanted her killed and offering to pay
him, the inmate knew Mosley was serious, so he called an FBI agent. The inmate did
it because his brother was murdered in 2010, and the people who did it were never
caught. Now he “snitches” on anyone who wants to kill another person. The sheriff’s
detectives met with him after he called the FBI agent and provided him with a
recording device. The inmate was instructed not to mention the murder-for-hire, and
to let Mosley bring it up. The State played a brief portion of a recording, and the
inmate identified the voices. Mosley was talking about getting money to pay a hitman.
The inmate had made up a guy who would kill L.H. when he got money. The inmate
tried to talk Mosley out of killing L.H., but he was adamant. The inmate testified that
Mosley said things like, “you know, I want her dead. I want the family dead. I want -
- like I said, I don’t know if his grandbaby or the grandniece -- Nugget dead. You know,
he just -- he was in -- he had a lot of rage in him. He had a lot of rage and anger in him
behind being incarcerated behind this woman.”
{¶33} Mosley told the inmate that he had lived with L.H. in a relationship, and
she was wrong and should not have done this. Mosley said, “They coulda talked it out.
They coulda worked it out.” Mosley was intoxicated the night it happened and said he
was sorry, but never denied the rape. Another recording was played where the two
discussed getting money to the inmate’s wife so she could pay the hitman. The inmate
11 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
never spoke with his wife; he was actually speaking to the detective. The inmate could
not remember when the plan evolved to have him kill L.H. On the next recording,
Mosley said he was going to kill Women Helping Women. Mosley was perturbed that
they were helping L.H. pursue charges against him, and he wanted everyone involved
dead. The inmate told him to focus on the first one.
{¶34} On the next recording, they talked about getting the inmate some
“tools.” “Tools” was the code word for guns, and Mosley said his brother-in-law had
some of his tools that he was going to sell for money for the down payment. Mosley
was going to pay the inmate more after his release and promised to give the inmate
the BMW and a motorcycle. On the next recording they discussed “stacks.” “Stacks”
refers to $1,000. Someone had deposited money into Mosley’s jail account or “books”
to pay the inmate’s wife, and a check was to be mailed to her. The State presented a
check for $100 from Mosley to the inmate’s wife. The check was in an envelope
addressed to the inmate’s wife. Mosley and the inmate discussed the hit, and Mosley
gave the inmate the schematics of where L.H. lived, directions to her home, and the
best way to access the house. Mosley told him about the ring camera, times when L.H.
left for work, where she parked, what door she would use, and what vehicle she drove.
Mosley sketched it on a piece of paper. The map Mosley drew was introduced into
evidence. The inmate gave Mosley multiple opportunities to withdraw the hit, but
Mosley wanted her dead.
{¶35} On cross-examination, the inmate recited his criminal history which
included a felony in 1992, a felony in Butler County, and an extensive misdemeanor
history. The inmate had been in prison twice and had worked as a confidential
informant (“CI”) for the FBI, HCSO, and the Cincinnati Police. When he had
information, he contacted law enforcement. Before his brother was murdered, the
12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
inmate snitched on people involved with drugs. When the inmate became an
informant in 2006, he had been charged with assault, obstructing, and tampering with
evidence. After his 2006 release, the inmate hired an attorney and contacted the FBI
about large quantities of drugs being transported into Hamilton County. The inmate
had received case consideration in the past in exchange for the information he
provided to law enforcement. In this case, the inmate was released on bond to make
it appear as if he were going to murder L.H.
{¶36} Next, the jail office manager of accounts testified that he handled all
deposits and withdrawals from the inmates’ accounts. The manager was asked to
intercept any checks sent by Mosley, and authenticated a resident-activity report from
Mosley’s account from October 3 through November 7. Cash was deposited on
November 7, and the manager intercepted a withdrawal check that week from Mosley.
The manager printed the check, and the detectives took it from his office. Mosley had
completed a withdrawal request form and opted to have the check mailed. The check
was written to the inmate’s wife from Mosley’s account on November 8. Mosley
identified the wife as his “niece.” Usually, inmates purchased an envelope from the
commissary and sent it with the withdrawal request, indicating where they wanted the
check mailed.
{¶37} The State rested, and Mosley testified on his own behalf. Mosely, who
was 61 years old, went to Withrow High School and joined the army after high school.
He received an honorable discharge and then became a plumber. Mosley had four
daughters and nine grandchildren. Mosley explained that he had pled guilty to the
felonious assault because he was guilty. He testified that he did not plead to rape or
conspiracy to murder because he did not commit those crimes. Mosley confirmed he
started dating L.H. after meeting her at the Elks Lodge in 2014. L.H. ended the
13 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
relationship and moved out of their home while Mosley was out of town. Mosley
blamed the BMW for the ending of the relationship.
{¶38} A few weeks after the break up, Mosley and L.H. met for dinner with
L.H.’s granddaughter Nugget, and they continued to talk. Occasionally, they would
get a hotel room, drink, and have sex. On Saturdays, they would have dinner with
Nugget, and they would shoot pool on Wednesdays. Mosley was permitted to pick up
Nugget from dance and take her to eat. Mosley was happy to spend time with L.H.,
but he missed her.
{¶39} Mosley testified that on June 10, they spoke on the phone and L.H. said
that if he really wanted to rekindle the relationship, he would bring her the motorcycle
and the pool stick. Mosley brought the items to her home, and they went to get a bottle
of Jack Daniels. Mosley authenticated photos from the ring camera showing his
arrival and entrance into her home at 10:22 p.m. Mosley was shown a photo of the
two of them leaving at 10:45 to get the liquor. At 11:26 p.m., they returned. L.H. had
a drink of Jack Daniels in her hand, and Mosley had a beer and the fifth of Jack
Daniels. At 11:44, he went outside to smoke a cigarette.
{¶40} Mosley and L.H. were listening to music, drinking, and having
consensual sex. The sex lasted about 20-25 minutes. Then they had an argument
because his car payment was late, and L.H. had cosigned the loan, and she was mad
they were not going to Tennessee for her brother’s birthday. During the fight, Mosley
said L.H. was going to “fuck around and make [him] slap her.” According to Mosley,
L.H. responded, “Yeah, go ahead. I’ll tell the police you raped me.”
{¶41} Then, Mosley snapped, grabbed L.H. by the mouth, and placed his
fingers in her mouth and “had her by the bottom of the chin.” Mosley told her he was
going to kill her and they would die that night. Mosley confirmed the statements were
14 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
audible on the ring video. Mosley told L.H. that she was the only “bitch” he ever loved,
and she was going to ruin his life. He repeatedly said he was going to kill her and then
himself. Mosley justified his actions because he was angry that she would accuse him
of rape. After arguing for ten minutes, Mosley went to sleep.
{¶42} Mosley testified that L.H. woke him up and said, “Let’s go get in the
bed.” The next thing he remembered was waking up to a police dog and the police.
Mosley was taken to the Reading Police Department and met with the female detective.
Mosley signed a Miranda waiver and admitted that he lied to the detective about the
assault because he was scared. When the detective told him that L.H. had accused him
of rape, Mosley was shocked. Mosley volunteered to provide a DNA sample and
consented to the search of his car because he did not own any guns.
{¶43} Mosley met the inmate after he pled guilty to the felonious assault. At
that time, Mosley explained that he was hurt, embarrassed, and depressed because he
had been wrong to assault L.H. While he was incarcerated, Mosley slipped while
getting out of the shower, and had trauma to his C-5 and C-4 vertebrae and nerve
numbness. The doctors diagnosed a tumor in the center of his back, which was
surgically removed. Mosley was prescribed pain-killers and muscle relaxers. Mosley
testified that the inmate suggested that he kill L.H., and given his current state of
mind, Mosley thought it was a good idea. Mosley further testified that he sent the
inmate’s wife $100 to pay her rent and identified her as his “niece” because inmates
may only send money to family.
{¶44} Mosley admitted that he had said awful things on the jail recordings, but
he was in a different state of mind at the time. Mosley admitted that he said he wanted
to kill L.H., but did not mean it.
{¶45} On cross-examination, Mosley was confronted with the numerous
15 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
recorded statements where he discussed paying for L.H.’s murder. Mosley admitted
that he gave specific instructions on L.H.’s locations because he wanted L.H dead.
Mosley admitted that he told the inmate to kill L.H. and drew him a map. However,
Mosley claimed the entire scheme was the inmate’s plan. When the prosecutor asked
if Mosley was claiming entrapment, he stated that the inmate put the idea to kill her
in his head.
{¶46} Mosley admitted to threatening L.H.’s granddaughter Nugget, and
explained that his rationale was that if he were incarcerated and unable to see his
grandchildren, then he wanted L.H.’s granddaughter dead. Mosley agreed that he
never mentioned sending the inmate’s wife money for rent on the recordings.
{¶47} Mosley testified that he did not black out that night, but he just fell
asleep on the floor on top of L.H. after he badly beat her. L.H. woke him up and said
the floor was uncomfortable and they should go to bed. Mosley testified that he
wanted to kill L.H. that night. Mosley identified the knife as his and said he kept it in
his car. Mosley did not know how it got into the apartment that night. He claimed that
L.H. planted the knife, and that the knife was very dull.
{¶48} After Mosley’s testimony, the defense rested. The jury convicted Mosley
of all the charges. Mosley was sentenced to 11 to 16 and one-half years on each rape
conviction to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to the felonious-
assault sentence. In the case numbered B-2305890, he was sentenced to 11 years on
conspiracy to commit murder and three years for intimidation. Those sentences were
ordered to be served consecutively to each other and to the aggregate sentence in the
case numbered B-2203078.
{¶49} The court made the following findings,
The Court finds under Ohio Revised Code 2929.14(C)(4), which
16 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
guides us as to consecutive sentencings; that consecutive sentences are
necessary in this case to protect the public from future crime or to
punish the offender. Consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to
the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender
poses to the public.
The Court also finds the offender committed one or more of the
multiple offenses while the offender was waiting trial, which is clearly
applicable in the B23 case.
As to the consecutive sentences on the B22 case, the Court finds
the offender’s history of criminal conduct demonstrates consecutive
sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the
offender.
{¶50} Mosley now appeals raising five assignments of error.
Sufficiency and Manifest Weight
{¶51} In his first and second assignments of error, argued together, Mosley
contends that the trial court erred as there was insufficient evidence to convict him,
and the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence.
{¶52} When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, he is
arguing that the State presented inadequate evidence on an element of the offense to
sustain the verdict as a matter of law. State v. Hawn, 138 Ohio App.3d 449, 471 (2d
Dist. 2000). “[T]he question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found all the essential
elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Ham, 2017-Ohio-
9189, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273 (1991), paragraph
two of the syllabus.
17 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶53} In reviewing a challenge to the weight of the evidence, we sit as a
“thirteenth juror.” State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387 (1997). We must
review the entire record, weigh the evidence, consider the credibility of the witnesses,
and determine whether the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest
miscarriage of justice. Id. “Although an appellate court may review credibility when
considering the manifest weight of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses is
primarily an initial determination for the trier of fact.” State v. Brown, 2024-Ohio-
2148, ¶ 17 (1st Dist.), citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (1967), paragraph one
of the syllabus. “The trier of fact is best able ‘to view the witnesses and observe their
demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the
credibility of the proffered testimony.’” Id., quoting State v. Wilson, 2007-Ohio-2202,
¶ 24.
{¶54} Mosley argues that the convictions were unsupported by the evidence
and contrary to the weight of the evidence because the testimony of L.H. and the
inmate was not credible. Mosley presents a manifest-weight argument, but does not
make any arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.
{¶55} Mosley concedes that with respect to the rape convictions, “it’s a he
said/she said situation.” Mosley insists that his testimony was credible because L.H.
gave different accounts of the events, which suggested that the sex was consensual,
and L.H. admitted that she told Mosley that she loved him. Mosley did not flee after
the alleged rape and instead remained in L.H.’s home sleeping, and he voluntarily
made a statement and provided his DNA.
{¶56} Similarly, Mosley contends the conspiracy and intimidation convictions
were based on the inmate’s “self-serving testimony,” and that the inmate orchestrated
the entire scheme. The inmate suggested that Mosley kill L.H. and set the price.
18 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Mosley was simply “mad and upset and said things he regretted.” The money Mosley
sent to the inmate’s wife was for rent, and not a murder-for-hire scheme.
{¶57} L.H. testified that Mosley raped her both vaginally and orally. The State
introduced evidence to corroborate L.H.’s account of the events, including Mosley’s
DNA on her breast, the knife that Mosley admitted was his, the photos of her injuries,
the overturned furniture in the living room, and L.H.’s bloody clothing. L.H. can be
heard on the ring videos pleading “no” and “please don’t” while Mosley asked her if
she wanted to die. During his testimony, Mosley admitted that he wanted to kill L.H.
that night.
{¶58} With respect to the conspiracy and intimidation charges, the State
presented evidence to corroborate the inmate’s testimony. On the recordings made by
the inmate, Mosley repeatedly said he wanted L.H. killed and stated there would be no
case against him if she were dead. Mosley provided detailed instructions about L.H.’s
daily routine, where she parked, her work hours, where she lived, and Mosley admitted
to drawing a small map. Mosley devised a plan to secure the funds by having his
brother sell his “tools.” Mosley testified that he wanted L.H. dead, but claimed the
inmate put the idea in his head. Mosley admitted that he wanted to kill L.H.’s
granddaughter too. Although Mosley testified that the check to the inmate’s wife was
for rent, Mosley stated on the recordings that the money was for a hitman. Mosley
never once stated that the money was for her rent on the recordings. Mosley’s down
payment for the murder, the detailed instructions he provided to the inmate, and the
map he drew demonstrated that he took substantial overt acts in furtherance of the
conspiracy.
{¶59} In considering a manifest weight challenge, this court weighs the
evidence and considers the credibility of witnesses, however, we recognize that the
19 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
trier of fact was in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses. See State
v. Coleman, 2022-Ohio-4029, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Landrum, 2016-Ohio-
5666, ¶ 17 (holding that “The trial court was free to accept the victim’s version of the
events and reject [the defendant’s] story.”).
{¶60} Here, the jury believed L.H.’s and the inmate’s version of the events.
This is not one of those exceptional cases in which the evidence weighs heavily against
the conviction. And we cannot say that the trial court clearly lost its way and created
a manifest miscarriage of justice.
{¶61} Accordingly, we overrule the first and second assignments of error.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
{¶62} In his third assignment of error, Mosley argues that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to object to the consolidation of
the indictments for trial.
{¶63} To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Mosley must show (1) that
counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance
prejudiced him. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-688 (1984). To
establish prejudice, 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.” Id. at 694. In assessing such claims, a reviewing court must remain
mindful that “the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the
circumstances, the challenged action ‘might be considered sound trial strategy.’” State
v. Echols, 2021-Ohio-4193, ¶ 40 (10th Dist.), quoting Strickland at 689.
{¶64} The State filed a motion to consolidate the indictments for trial. At the
hearing on the motion, defense counsel stated,
Judge, I’ve reviewed the motion, and I’ve had an opportunity to
20 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
speak with Mr. Mosley about the motion and what his options are. In
talking to him about what the motion means, he has no objection to
consolidating the matters for trial.
{¶65} Mosley contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by
failing to object to the consolidation of the indictments for trial. However, Mosley,
after consulting with counsel, did not oppose the consolidation of the cases for trial.
The decision not to object was the result of conversations between Mosely and his trial
counsel that included Mosley’s options.
{¶66} As several courts have concluded, the decision to proceed to trial with
consolidated cases “may be a matter of counsel’s trial strategy.” State v. Pridgett,
2016-Ohio-687, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.); State v Adkins, 2004-Ohio-4019, ¶ 25 (3d Dist.)
(“The failure to object to the consolidation of the cases could very well have been trial
strategy.”). Here, counsel represented that the decision not to object to consolidation
was made by Mosely in consultation with counsel. Mosley failed to overcome the
presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action “‘might be
considered sound trial strategy.’” See Echols 202-Ohio-4193 at ¶ 40 (10th Dist.);
Strickland 466 U.S. at 689. Therefore, the failure to object constituted trial strategy
and not ineffective assistance of counsel.
{¶67} We overrule the third assignment of error.
Discovery Violation
{¶68} Next, Mosley avers that the trial court erred when it admitted the 911
call because the call should have been excluded as a discovery sanction and was unduly
prejudicial.
{¶69} An appellate court reviews a trial court’s sanctions for discovery
violations for an abuse of discretion. State v. Maynard, 2023-Ohio-4619, ¶ 22 (1st
21 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Dist.), citing State v. Darmond, 2013-Ohio-966, ¶ 20. A trial court abuses its
discretion when it makes a decision that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary.
Id., citing State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980).
{¶70} “Multiple appellate courts in Ohio have held that a trial court abuses its
discretion when it fails to impose the least severe sanction for a discovery violation
that is consistent with the purpose of the rules of discovery.” State v. McHenry, 2021-
Ohio-3118, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Lambert, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5163, *3
(6th Dist. Nov. 22, 1996) (finding an abuse of discretion where the trial court inquired
into the circumstances surrounding a discovery violation, but did not impose the least
severe sanction that was consistent with the rules of discovery); State v. Warfield,
2006-Ohio-935, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.) (finding the trial court’s decision dismissing an
indictment due to an inadvertent discovery violation was an abuse of discretion
because it “went beyond the least severe sanction consistent with the purpose of the
rules of discovery” and “was too severe . . . given the nature of the infraction”); State
v. King, 2010-Ohio-5701, ¶ 24 and ¶ 75 (5th Dist.) (finding an abuse of discretion
where the trial court did not impose the least severe sanction for a discovery violation,
but instead “imposed the most severe sanction that it could”).
{¶71} When the prosecutor located a 911 call made by L.H. that the State
previously did not provide to the defense, he acknowledged the error and explained
that the former prosecutor on the case had been fired. The prosecutor immediately
provided a copy to defense counsel. The prosecutor requested the court to admit the
call “given its relevancy.” Defense counsel accepted the current prosecutor’s
explanation and stated that he was previously told a 911 call did not exist. Counsel
requested the 911 call be excluded from evidence as a discovery violation.
{¶72} The prosecutor argued that exclusion would be the most severe
22 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
sanction, and requested that the court give defense counsel a continuance to review
the five-minute call. Defense counsel requested additional time to listen to the call
and possibly get a transcript because, “It’s an important piece of evidence as it relates
to the cross-examination of several of the upcoming witnesses.” If the court agreed,
defense counsel was fine to proceed in that manner.
{¶73} The court found that the violation was not willful and appeared to be
inadvertent, the 911 call merely corroborated events, and that the caller, L.H., would
testify. As a sanction, the court would allow the defense “very wide latitude on cross-
examination” and a continuance if necessary. Mosley objected for the record.
{¶74} The record indicates that the court considered the necessary law and
factors in imposing the least restrictive sanction available. Accordingly, we cannot
conclude the court abused its discretion in crafting the least restrictive sanction for the
discovery violation.
{¶75} Mosley also contends that the court erred because the call was not
relevant and was unduly prejudicial because it was a trial by ambush, and 911 calls
tend to incite sympathy from the jury. However, Mosley did not object at trial on
relevancy grounds. Additionally, Mosely acknowledged that the call was relevant by
stating, “It’s an important piece of evidence as it relates to the cross-examination of
several of the upcoming witnesses.”
{¶76} Generally, “all relevant evidence is prejudicial.” State v. Crotts, 2004-
Ohio-6550, ¶ 23. As such, the rules of evidence only exclude “evidence that is unfairly
prejudicial.” Id. “Unfair prejudice is that quality of evidence which might result in an
improper basis for a jury decision.” State v. J.L.S., 2012-Ohio-181, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.),
citing Oberlin v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 2001-Ohio-248.
{¶77} Here, the 911 call was relevant, and we cannot say the recording
23 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
provided an improper basis for a jury decision and affected the outcome of the trial.
“Though prejudicial to Defendant with respect to his criminal liability, it was not
unfairly so. Neither did it confuse the issues or mislead the jury, being the subject of
cross-examination that exposed whatever weaknesses the evidence may have had.”
See State v. Lenoir, 2003-Ohio-2820, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.) (“The evidence on the tape of Ms.
Johnson’s 911 call has a tendency to make the existence of facts concerning
Defendant’s beating of Adkins and his abduction of her more probable. Therefore, it
was relevant. Evid.R. 401.”).
{¶78} Accordingly, we overrule Mosley’s fourth assignment of error.
Consecutive Sentences
{¶79} In his fifth assignment of error, Mosley argues that the trial court erred
by imposing consecutive prison sentences.
{¶80} Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(a), an appellate court may review the trial
court’s consecutive-sentence findings, and it may “increase, reduce, or otherwise
modify” consecutive sentences only if it “clearly and convincingly” finds that the record
does not support the trial court’s findings. “An appellate court’s inquiry is limited to
a review of the trial court’s R.C. 2929.14(C) findings. State v. Glover, 2024-Ohio-5195,
¶ 44; R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
{¶81} Ohio law contains a statutory presumption of concurrent sentences for
defendants convicted of multiple offenses. State v. Galinari, 2022-Ohio-2559, ¶ 9 (1st
Dist.). “The general principle set forth in the Revised Code is that concurrent
sentences are the default and consecutive sentences are the exception.” State v.
Hitchcock, 2019-Ohio-3246, ¶ 21. To impose consecutive sentences, a sentencing
court must make the mandatory sentencing findings prescribed by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
See Galinari at ¶ 9, citing State v. McKinney, 2022-Ohio-849, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.). Under
24 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), a trial court must make three distinct findings: (1) “the consecutive
service is necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender,”
(2) “consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender’s
conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,” and (3) one or more of
R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)’s subsections apply.
{¶82} Mosley does not contend that the court failed to make the requisite
findings. Rather, Mosley argues the sentence was disproportionate because Mosley
did not have a firearm, did not preplan the crimes, and was under the influence when
he committed the rape. The record established that Mosley brutally raped L.H. then
attempted to have her killed so that she could not testify against him. Mosley also
wanted to kill L.H.’s granddaughter in retaliation for L.H. going to the police. Based
on this record, the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences was not clearly and
convincingly unsupported by the record.
Conclusion
{¶83} Having overruled Mosley’s five assignments of error, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Judgments affirmed.
CROUSE and NESTOR, JJ., concur.