State v. Tarrance

2024 Ohio 1952

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: C-230475
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Tarrance, 2024-Ohio-1952.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-230475 TRIAL NO. 21CRB-7253 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : O P I N I O N.

DESEAN TARRANCE :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Municipal Court

Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Appellant Discharged

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: May 22, 2024

Emily Smart Woerner, City Solicitor, William T. Horsley, Chief Prosecuting Attorney, and Connor E. Wood, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plainitff-Appellee,

Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and David Hoffmann, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

WINKLER, Judge. {¶1} Following a bench trial, defendant-appellant Desean Tarrance was

convicted of violating a protection order under R.C. 2919.27. He has appealed that

conviction and presents four assignments of error for review. We find merit in his

assignments of error, and therefore, we reverse his conviction and discharge him from

further prosecution.

{¶2} In his first assignment of error, Tarrance contends that the trial court

committed plain error by admitting a copy of the protection order that was not

certified or testified to as correct by a witness who compared the copy with the original

order. We agree. The copy was not authenticated under Evid.R. 901, Evid.R. 902, or

Evid.R. 1005. See State ex rel. Dewine v. 333 Joseph, LLC, 2014-Ohio-5090, 21

N.E.3d 11422, ¶ 29-32 (3d Dist.). The state concedes the error. Consequently, we

sustain Tarrance’s first assignment of error.

{¶3} In his third assignment of error, Tarrance contends that the evidence

was insufficient to support the conviction. Because the state did not present a certified

copy of the protection order, it failed to prove a prima facie element of the offense. See

Cleveland v. Boone, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105762, 2018-Ohio-849, ¶ 30. Therefore,

the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and we sustain Tarrance’s

third assignment of error.

{¶4} The state argues that we should remand the cause to the trial court for

a new trial. But when a conviction is reversed due to insufficient evidence, the double-

jeopardy clause bars a retrial. See State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678

N.E.2d 541 (1997); State v. Duncan, 154 Ohio App.3d 254, 2003-Ohio-4695, 796

N.E.2d 1006, ¶ 37 (1st Dist.).

2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶5} In sum, we sustain Terrance’s first and third assignments of error,

reverse his conviction, and discharge him from further prosecution. We find his other

two assignments of error to be moot, and we decline to address them.

Judgment reversed and appellant discharged.

BOCK, P.J., and ZAYAS, J., concur.

Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.