FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR-2017-01-0309
R. HICKS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
J. CARR, JUDGE.
Defendant-Appellant, Darshawn McCormick, appeals from the
judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This
The victim in this matter was gunned down in broad daylight
just outside the apartment that he shared with his
girlfriend. Three men were seen running from the scene, one
of whom was later identified as McCormick. The police were
unable to apprehend McCormick that day because, as an officer
stopped the vehicle in which McCormick was riding, he jumped
from it and fled on foot. Nevertheless, the police were able
to apprehend one of the other men who had been with
McCormick, and he led them to evidence that helped identify
McCormick as the shooter. That evidence included the
sweatshirt McCormick had been wearing that day, which tested
positive for gunshot residue. Additionally, the police
discovered at McCormick's residence a partially loaded
magazine containing the same model and caliber bullets used
to kill the victim. After interviewing McCormick and
collecting additional statements, the police arrested him.
A grand jury indicted McCormick on charges of murder, felony
murder, felonious assault, and having a weapon under
disability. His indictment also included three firearm
specifications linked to his counts for murder, felony
murder, and felonious assault. Following a jury trial, the
jury found McCormick guilty of each of his counts and
specifications. The court then merged his felony murder and
felonious assault counts and specifications with his murder
count and specification. It ordered him to serve consecutive
sentences on his remaining specification and counts for a
total of 20.5 years to life in prison.
McCormick now appeals from his convictions and raises two
assignments of error for our review.
OF ERROR I
EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO
SUPPORT THE CONVICTIONS[.]
In his first assignment of error, McCormick argues that his
convictions are based on insufficient evidence because the
State failed to prove identity. He asserts that the evidence,
if believed, only showed that he was in the vicinity of the
victim's murder, not that he perpetrated it. Upon review,
we do not agree that his convictions are based on
Whether the evidence in a case is legally sufficient to
sustain a conviction is a question of law that this Court
reviews de novo. See ...