## Facts

- Shawn Hope was socializing and playing cards at the Warren, Ohio home of Alicia Binion, her cousin John Paul Kellar, and Kellar’s fiancée, Tabitha Powell.
- During the visit, Hope made advances toward Powell and Binion, leading to a brief argument between Hope and Kellar that ended with the men calming down and joking again.
- Binion eventually asked Hope to leave, and he did.
- The next day, Binion, Powell, and Kellar were at home; Powell was in the bedroom with Kellar, rubbing his feet.
- Around 6:30 p.m., Hope knocked on the door. Although Binion was reluctant, she answered after Kellar told her to do so.
- Hope entered, asked where Kellar and Powell were, and started walking toward the bedroom area.
- Kellar stepped out to meet him in the hallway, and Hope suddenly pulled a gun from his coat pocket and shot Kellar twice in the chest at close range.
- After the shooting, Hope made a taunting remark (“Who’s the bitch now?”) and kicked Kellar; Kellar died from multiple gunshot wounds.
- The state also presented evidence supporting additional charges beyond aggravated murder, including allegations that Hope took property during the incident and later acted to conceal or dispose of evidence connected to the shooting.
- A jury convicted Hope of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, kidnapping (each with firearm specifications), having weapons while under disability, and tampering with evidence.
- The trial court imposed prison terms that included consecutive terms on the firearm specifications; at sentencing, the court made consecutive-sentence findings, but one required finding was not included in the written sentencing entry.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove aggravated murder, including the element of prior calculation and design.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove tampering with evidence.
3. Whether the aggravated-murder and tampering-with-evidence convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an involuntary-manslaughter instruction.
5. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance due to an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected performance.
6. Whether alleged prosecutorial misconduct during argument deprived Hope of a fair trial.
7. Whether an error in the jury verdict forms regarding firearm specifications invalidated the firearm-specification sentences.
8. Whether the trial court properly imposed consecutive prison terms on the firearm specifications and properly included the required findings in the sentencing entry.

## Decision

- Held the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravated-murder conviction, including prior calculation and design.
- Held the evidence was sufficient to support the tampering-with-evidence conviction.
- Held the aggravated-murder and tampering-with-evidence convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Rejected the ineffective-assistance claim based on failure to seek an involuntary-manslaughter instruction.
- Rejected the ineffective-assistance claim based on an alleged conflict of interest because Hope did not show an actual conflict that affected counsel’s performance.
- Found no prosecutorial misconduct warranting reversal.
- Held the verdict-form mistake did not invalidate the firearm-specification sentences where the jury’s findings were clear from the record as a whole.
- Upheld the trial court’s decision to impose consecutive terms on the firearm specifications, but remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to add a consecutive-sentencing finding omitted from the written judgment entry.

## Legal Principles

- Aggravated murder under Ohio law requires proof of prior calculation and design, which may be shown through circumstances indicating planning and reflection beyond a momentary or spontaneous act.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational factfinder could find the essential elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Manifest-weight review permits reversal only when the jury clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice; the jury generally decides witness credibility.
- Tampering with evidence requires proof that the defendant, knowing an official investigation or proceeding was likely, acted with purpose to impair evidence’s value or availability by altering, destroying, concealing, or removing it.
- Ineffective assistance under Strickland requires deficient performance and a reasonable probability of a different result absent the deficiency; decisions about requesting lesser or inferior-offense instructions may be treated as trial strategy unless prejudice is shown.
- A conflict-of-interest claim requires an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel’s performance; speculative or potential conflicts do not establish a constitutional violation.
- Claims of prosecutorial misconduct turn on whether the remarks were improper and, if so, whether they deprived the defendant of a fair trial when viewed in context.
- Errors in verdict forms do not require reversal when the jury’s intent and findings are otherwise clear from the indictment, instructions, and verdicts.
- When a trial court makes the required consecutive-sentencing findings at the hearing but fails to fully incorporate them into the written entry, the appellate court may remand for correction by nunc pro tunc entry without disturbing the sentence.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh District affirmed Hope’s aggravated-murder conviction (including the jury’s ability to find prior calculation and design from the circumstances of Hope’s return to the home and close-range shooting), rejected his remaining challenges to the convictions and firearm-specification sentences, and remanded only for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry adding a missing consecutive-sentencing finding that had been made at the sentencing hearing.


State v. Hope, 2019 Ohio 2174, 137 N.E.3d 549 (2019)