Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking
from the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
Plaintiff-Appellee PAULA SAWYERS Chief Assistant Prosecuting
Defendant-Appellant ROBERT C. BANNERMAN.
JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J. Hon. William B.
Hoffman, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
Defendant-appellant Anthony B. Triona appeals his conviction
and sentence entered by the Licking County Court of Common
Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
OF THE FACTS AND CASE
Two victims are involved in this case, A.I. and J.K. On
January 5, 2015, Appellant contacted A.I. through Facebook,
and asked her to come to his residence. Appellant and A.I.
had a previous relationship, but had not been in contact for
some time prior to January 5, 2015. A.I. arrived at
Appellant's residence sometime after midnight on January
6, 2015, and they went to Appellant's bedroom.
The parties talked for a while. When A.I. attempted to leave
the room, she maintains Appellant pushed her backwards onto
the bed. Appellant then held her arms above her head, removed
her leggings and proceeded to engage in vaginal intercourse
with A.I. A.I. claims she repeatedly told Appellant to stop,
and tried to get up, but Appellant held her down. Tr. at 134.
Appellant bit A.I's breast during the encounter. Tr. at
139. A.I. cried, making small noises and struggled during the
encounter. Tr. at 135-136. Appellant placed a pillow on
A.I.'s face, and held her wrist down. Id.
Appellant told A.I. he would not stop "until he was
done." Tr. at 138. Immediately after the incident, A.I.
left the residence.
In a controlled phone call by law enforcement the next day,
Appellant stated he had never done such a thing before, hoped
they could remain friends, and believed his "power and
control" just took over the situation. Appellant
admitted to engaging in "pretend rape" with other
girlfriends, and believing Appellant would enjoy it. Tr. at
At trial, Appellant admitted to engaging in rough sex with
A.I., as he thought she would "enjoy it." Tr. at
359. He told her before the encounter he was "better at
sex" and "had learned some new things." He did
not tell her specifically what he would do to her. Tr. at
358. He maintains A.I. never told him to stop, did not
struggle and consented to the encounter despite having a
J.K. dated Appellant during the summer months of 2012. J.K.
attended bonfires at Appellant's mother's house.
During a bonfire, Appellant asked J.K to look at something in
the barn with him, and locked the door. J.K. maintains she
told Appellant she would not have sex with him that night as
his parents were sleeping inside the residence. Tr. at 289.
Appellant then pushed J.K. downward onto the cement floor,
placing one arm on her upper back to hold her down while he
pulled down the leggings she was wearing. Tr. at 290. J.K.
maintains she struggled to get up, and told Appellant
"no" and to "stop." Tr. at 291-292.
Appellant attempted anal penetration; subsequently, engaging
in vaginal intercourse with J.K. J.K. repeatedly told
Appellant to stop and shouted at him. Appellant's mother
pounded on the man door to the barn, and Appellant stopped.
Appellant testified at trial he had a sexual relationship
with J.K. at the time, and they had sexual intercourse in the
barn on several occasions. However, Appellant denied
recollection of the specific encounter with J.K.
Appellant admits to engaging in rape role play, or pretend
rape as a sexual activity.
On April 21, 2016, the Licking County Grand Jury indicted
Appellant on two counts of rape (Counts One and Three), in
violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), felonies of the first
degree; and one count of resisting arrest (Count
Two), in violation of R.C. 2921.33(A), a
misdemeanor of the second degree.
On June 24, 2016, the trial court conducted a rape shield
hearing, wherein the parties stipulated to Appellant having a
prior relationship with the alleged victims. The parties
agreed they would not inquire as to specific instances of any
prior relationships, particularly any acts of sexual activity
predating the offenses charged.
On June 27, 2016, Appellant filed a request for relief from
prejudicial joinder. Appellant moved the trial court for
relief from joinder of the three counts relating to two
different victims in a single indictment. Appellant argued
joinder in a single indictment would prejudice his
opportunity to have a fair trial, citing Criminal Rule 14
governing relief from joinder in a single indictment.
Specifically, Appellant moved the trial court to sever Count
Three, pertaining to J.K., from Counts One and Two,
pertaining to A.I., from the indictment "for the
purposes of any further proceedings
herein." The State filed a memorandum contra
Appellant's motion to sever on June 29, 2016. The trial
court overruled the motion on the record prior to
Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted on all
counts. The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing, and
imposed sentence via August 22, 2016 Judgment Entry.
Appellant appeals, ...