Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio v. Stanley Dejarnette

November 3, 2011

STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
STANLEY DEJARNETTE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-543896

The opinion of the court was delivered by: James J. Sweeney, J.:

Cite as State v. DeJarnette,

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT:

AFFIRMED

BEFORE: Sweeney, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and Keough, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Stanley Dejarnette appeals from his conviction for intimidation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶2} At trial, the alleged victim, Waleed Tayeh ("Waleed"), testified that on October 1, 2010, he was working at a deli owned by his aunt located on Harvard Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio. During that time, Waleed was the victim/witness in a criminal case that was pending against defendant's son. According to Waleed, defendant entered the store on October 1, 2010, and threatened him saying if he testified against his son, defendant would kill him, burn the store down, and Waleed would never make it out alive. In response, Waleed wrote down defendant's license plate number and called 9-1-1.

{¶3} Waleed testified that he was aware of defendant's son's pending trial date when defendant threatened him on October 1, 2010. The defense cross-examined Waleed with his statement to police where he indicated he was not aware of any pending trial dates for defendant's son. Waleed said he must have misunderstood the question because he was aware of the pending trial date.

{¶4} During trial, the state played a videotape that recorded the altercation between defendant and Waleed but was without any audio.

{¶5} Officer Newton testified that he responded to an incident at the deli on July 9, 2010 and recalled the names of the witnesses to that incident, which included Waleed.

{¶6} Detective Paul Burgio identified state's Exhibit 3, as defendant's son's criminal indictment that was issued on August 4, 2010 for offenses that allegedly occurred on July 9, 2010.

{¶7} Two witnesses testified for the defense in addition to defendant. Both witnesses were present at the deli on October 1, 2010. Both of the witnesses said they heard defendant and Waleed arguing with each other but neither of them heard the whole exchange. Defendant admitted that he was discussing his concerns over Waleed testifying at his son's trial; however, he denied threatening Waleed.

{¶8} The jury found defendant guilty and he has appealed.

{¶9} "Assignment of Error I: The indictment failed to provide Appellant adequate notice of the charges against him."

{¶10} Defendant alleges that the indictment was defective because he was not aware of the identity of the person he was being accused of intimidating, the predicate event, the case number of the legal proceeding constituting the predicate matter, and the witness's alleged duty.

{ΒΆ11} To the extent defendant is attempting on appeal to challenge the indictment for insufficiency of notice, he has waived all but plain error. Defendant never objected to the sufficiency of the indictment nor otherwise raised the issue of deficient notice before the trial court. He did not file a motion to dismiss on this basis nor did he move for a more specific bill of particulars. Whatever information the state provided in response to his discovery requests, defendant accepted without objection. We can only ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.