State v. Baker , 2022 Ohio 1853 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Baker, 2022-Ohio-1853.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2021-0041
TRISTANEY BAKER
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. CR2021-0262
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 1, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
RONALD L. WELCH PETER GALYARDT
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
TAYLOR P. BENNINGTON 250 East Broad Street
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR Suite 1400
27 North Fifth Street, P. O. Box 189 Columbus, Ohio 43215
Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 2
Wise, P. J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Tristaney Baker appeals her conviction and sentence
entered in the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, following a plea of guilty.
{¶2} Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶3} The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:
{¶4} On April 27, 2021, officers with the Zanesville Police Department were
dispatched to 46 South Sixth Street, Apartment 2, in Zanesville, Ohio, at approximately
7:00 p.m., in reference to a woman who had been shot.
{¶5} The caller, Patrick Downs, stated he had just arrived back at his apartment
and found the woman dead in the apartment. Upon arrival, the officers found that the
victim had been shot multiple times. Six 9-millimeter shell casings were located at the
scene. No gun was located at that time.
{¶6} Detective Chris Andrews spoke with Mr. Downs, who identified the victim
as Jayla Wyatt. Downs told the police that Ms. Wyatt had recently started staying with
him, and that he believed that the person who shot her was his girlfriend, Kristin Baker.
Downs stated that earlier in the day he had talked with Kristin and she told him that she
would be over later to pick up some personal belongings. It was later determined that
Kristin’s real name was Tristaney Baker.
{¶7} Downs told the officers that before the incident had occurred, he was told
that Kristin was outside his apartment building. He stated he went outside about five
minutes later and he and Kristin had a conversation in his car and then she left. He told
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 3
the police that he had been gone for approximately forty-five minutes when he received
a call from Michael Seevers telling him that Jayla was dead in his apartment.
{¶8} Downs stated that Kristin and Jayla had verbal altercations within the past
week and were feuding. He stated that the day before, Appellant had come to his
apartment, caused a disturbance, and ended up breaking a window to the apartment
before she left. Downs told the police that Kristin was driving a blue car that is owned by
her current boyfriend, whose name he did not know.
{¶9} While conducting interviews in this area, Detective McElhaney spoke to a
woman that was exiting a business near the 46 South Sixth Street apartment building at
the time of the incident. She was walking in the parking area between the two buildings
to go to her vehicle. While she was attempting to cross the alley, a two-door sports car,
robin egg blue in color, drove south in the alley in the rear of 46 South Sixth Street. The
blue vehicle then backed in to the rear of the building and parked near the dumpster. The
witness observed a young, white male having short light-colored hair possibly wearing a
blue hoodie in the driver's seat. She noticed that the front bumper of the car on the driver's
side had something hanging down from it. Continuing to her car, she heard three to four,
what she believed to be, gunshots. She then began walking back to the rear of the
neighboring business. As she was crossing in front of the blue car, she observed a brown
and white pit bull come running from the rear of 46 South Sixth Street. She observed a
female exit from the same location describing the female 5-4 to 5-5 height, extremely
skinny, wearing shorts and possibly a hoodie, and having dirty blonde or light brown hair.
She stated the female went to the blue car and opened the door. At that time the witness
asked this female if the dog was hers, and the female replied no. The female got into the
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 4
vehicle and left going south in the alley. Located directly behind the 46 South Sixth Street
apartment building is a dance studio business with outside surveillance cameras.
Surveillance video showed a blue car, as described by the witness, parked in the parking
lot apartments at the dumpster. Video shows a skinny female wearing shorts and hoodie
exit the vehicle and go towards the apartment building. A short time later, she is again
observed returning quickly back to the vehicle.
{¶10} While detectives are on scene, Denzil Wilson arrived at the apartment
building. He stated that he and Jayla were on-again-off-again boyfriend and girlfriend. He
stated he had gone to Downs’ apartment the day prior to try to get Jayla to leave, but she
would not go with him. He further stated that Patrick's ex-girlfriend is a female by the
name of Tristaney Baker, who lives in Columbus, and knew that she had been back within
the last few weeks to visit this apartment.
{¶11} Evidence was collected at the scene, including DNA and biological
evidence, and six (6) spent 9-millimeter shell casings which were collected from the
entryway of the apartment in to the living room area. A cell phone was also located. The
screen of the phone had a photo of two small children belonging to Jayla Wyatt.
{¶12} Detective Andrews received written consent from Patrick Downs to have a
forensic download of his cell phone, where they obtained a number for Kristin with a "K".
Upon download, the photo of the person utilizing the 614 number that was found under
"K" in Patrick Downs' phone matched the description given of the suspect and OHLEG
(Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway) photograph of Tristaney Cheylynn Baker. The address
attached to her phone and phone number was 73 Mayfield Boulevard in Columbus, Ohio.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 5
{¶13} Detective Andrews conducted an audio-video, recorded interview with
Denzil Wilson. Police also recovered Wilson's phone, which showed that there was a call
between Tristaney Baker and Denzil Wilson just after the incident. An exigent
circumstance order was obtained by Detective Sergeant Phil Michel for the phone number
belonging to Tristaney Baker. The order revealed the number was active in cell towers in
the area of State Route 13 near Hupp Road just after the shooting. The exigent order also
showed the current location of the phone to be at 73 Mayfield - Mayfair Boulevard,
Apartment C, in Columbus, Ohio. A complaint was then filed for Tristaney Baker for
murder.
{¶14} Columbus Police Department went to the residence and took Tristaney
Baker into custody. Also at the residence was Devin McKnelly, Tristaney Baker's
boyfriend. No firearms were recovered at that location. Devin McKnelly was driving a blue
in color Honda car, which was located near the apartment and was taken in to evidence.
The vehicle matched the vehicle seen in the security video leaving the scene of the
shooting.
{¶15} Detective Andrews located an address for Emily McKnelly at 7606 Hupp
Road in Thornville in Licking County. This address was near where the pings from the
exigent order were coming from just after the shooting. Devin McKnelly indicated he had
a room at that residence.
{¶16} On April 28, 2021, Detective Andrews went to the Hupp Road, Thornville,
address and spoke to Delana Nelson. Delana Nelson advised that she was house-sitting
for Emily McKnelly and her son. Detective Andrews asked if Devin McKnelly had been to
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 6
the house. She stated that he had been to the house with Tristaney about 6 to 7 p.m. on
April 27th. Delana recalled that Devin had gone up to his room and left a short time later.
{¶17} On April 28, 2021, the police also interviewed Kayla Craig wherein she
stated that Appellant admitted to shooting a girl about ten times. Craig described that
Appellant was jealous of the girl in reference to a drug-dealer boyfriend. Appellant told
her she shot the victim in the thigh and just kept shooting until she was out of bullets.
Appellant also said that the girl that was there had a pit bull. Craig described Appellant
as being proud of what had occurred and showing no remorse. Craig also stated that
Devin McKnelly told her that he got Appellant the gun and she believed that he got it from
his mom's house.
{¶18} On April 28, 2021, Devin McKnelly was interviewed by detectives. He
initially denied having any knowledge of the homicide, later admitting that he obtained the
firearm for Appellant, provided her with transportation from Columbus to Thornville to get
the gun and then from Thornville to Zanesville. He stated that Appellant had said that she
wanted to shoot Wyatt, although he believed that she was joking. He stated that he took
a ride back to Thornville where he then concealed the gun in a shoebox in his brother's
closet. He then returned to Columbus with Appellant.
{¶19} Appellant denied being involved in the shooting. Located in the vehicle that
was searched by BCI were latex gloves which appeared to have gunshot residue between
the thumb and forefinger.
{¶20} The autopsy determined that the victim had suffered from six gunshot
wounds, several to the legs, body, and one directly to the face. This all occurred in
Muskingum County.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 7
{¶21} On May 13, 2021, Appellant was indicted on the following counts:
Count 1: Aggravated Murder (firearm specification), unclassified
felony, R.C. §2903.01(A); R.C. §2941.145.
Count 2: Aggravated Murder (firearm specification), unclassified
felony, R.C. §2903.01(B); R.C. §2941.145.
Count 3: Aggravated Burglary (firearm specification), felony of the first
degree, R.C. §2911.11(A)(2).
Count 4: Tampering with Evidence, felony of the third degree, R.C.
§2921.12(A)(1).
Count 5: Possession of Criminal Tools, felony of the fifth degree, R.C.
§2923.24(A).
{¶22} On May 17, 2021, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to all counts. The trial
court ordered a pre-sentence investigation and set the matter for a sentencing hearing.
{¶23} On June 28, 2021, a sentencing hearing was held. The trial court merged
Counts 1 and 2 for purposes of sentencing and sentenced Appellant as follows:
Count 1: Mandatory prison term of life in prison without the possibility
of parole
Specification: Mandatory prison term of three (3) years
Count 3: Prison term of eleven (11) years
Specification: Mandatory prison term of three (3) years
Count 4: Prison term of thirty-six (36) months
Count 5: Prison term of twelve (12) months
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 8
{¶24} The court ordered the terms of incarceration to be served concurrently with
one another, the firearm specifications shall both be served mandatory consecutive to
each other and count one for an aggregate mandatory sentence of life in prison without
the possibility of parole plus six (6) years.
{¶25} Appellant now appeals, raising the following assignments of error for review:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶26} “I. TRISTANEY BAKER RECEIVED CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. FIFTH, SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS,
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 10 AND 16, OHIO
CONSTITUTION.
{¶27} “II. TRISTANEY BAKER'S SENTENCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. FIFTH,
SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION;
ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 10 AND 16, OHIO CONSTITUTION.”
I.
{¶28} In her first assignment of error, Appellant argues she was denied the
effective assistance of trial counsel. We disagree.
{¶29} A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a two-prong analysis.
The first inquiry in whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonable representation involving a substantial violation of any of defense counsel's
essential duties to Appellant. The second prong is whether the Appellant was prejudiced
by counsel's ineffectiveness. Lockhart v. Fretwell (1993), 506 U.S. 364, 113 S.Ct. 838,
122 L.Ed.2d 180; Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80
L.Ed.2d 674; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 9
{¶30} In determining whether counsel's representation fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness, judicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly
deferential. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d at 142, 538 N.E.2d 373. Because of the difficulties
inherent in determining whether effective assistance of counsel was rendered in any given
case, a strong presumption exists that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of
reasonable, professional assistance. Id.{¶31} In order to warrant a reversal, Appellant must additionally show he was
prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness. This requires a showing that there is a
reasonable probability that but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different. Bradley, supra at syllabus paragraph three. A
reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.
{¶32} The United States Supreme Court and the Ohio Supreme Court have held
a reviewing court “need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient
before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged
deficiencies.” Bradley at 143, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373, quoting Strickland at
697, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Accordingly, we will direct our attention to the second
prong of the Strickland test.
{¶33} Here, Appellant argues that trial counsel's failure to request a competency
evaluation constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
{¶34} A defendant is competent to stand trial if he has sufficient present ability to
consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and has a
rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him. State v.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 10
Roberts, 137 Ohio St.3d 230, 2013-Ohio-4580, 998 N.E.2d 1100, ¶ 82, citing Dusky v.
United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960).
{¶35} R.C. § 2945.37(A) provides that “[a] defendant is presumed competent to
stand trial, unless it is proved by a preponderance of the evidence in a hearing under this
section that because of his present mental condition he is incapable of understanding the
nature and objective of the proceedings against him or of presently assisting his defense.”
{¶36} R.C. §2945.37(B) entitles the defense to a pretrial competency hearing
upon request: “In a criminal action in a court of common pleas, * * * the court, prosecutor,
or defense may raise the issue of the defendant's competence to stand trial. If the issue
is raised before the trial has commenced, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue as
provided in this section.” (Emphasis added.) Defense counsel is not ineffective in failing
to request that the trial court order a competency evaluation or hold a competency hearing
when the defendant does not display sufficient indicia of incompetency to warrant a
competency hearing. State v. Lawson, 165 Ohio St.3d 445, 2021-Ohio-3566, 179 N.E.3d
1216 citing State v. Thomas, 97 Ohio St.3d 309, 2002-Ohio-6624, 779 N.E.2d 1017, ¶
41.
{¶37} In the context of a criminal trial, a trial court's failure to hold a competency
hearing does not rise to constitutional proportions unless the record contains sufficient
indicia of incompetency. State v. Bock (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 108, 502 N.E.2d 1016.
According to Bock, “[i]ncompetency must not be equated with mere mental or emotional
instability or even with outright insanity. A defendant may be emotionally disturbed or
even psychotic and still be capable of understanding the charges against him and of
assisting his counsel.” Id. at 110, 502 N.E.2d 1016.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 11
{¶38} Upon review, we find Appellant is unable to demonstrate he was prejudiced
by counsel's failure to request a competency evaluation. Accordingly, this argument fails
under the second prong of Strickland, supra, and Bradley, supra.
{¶39} We find that the record contains insufficient indicia of incompetence to
require a competency evaluation or a competency hearing. Nothing in the presentence
investigation demonstrates Appellant's mental health issues rose to the level of
incompetence to stand trial. Rather, the record reveals that Appellant planned the victim’s
murder, she employed her boyfriend to obtain a gun for her, she waited until there were
no witnesses around and then broke into the apartment and shot the victim six times. She
had her boyfriend waiting as her getaway driver, and they took the gun and hid it out of
town before returning to Columbus. Appellant then bragged about the murder to a friend,
which included such details as the victim having a pit bull and that she just kept shooting
until she ran out of bullets.
{¶40} Even if defense counsel had requested a competency evaluation and the
trial court had held a hearing, the alleged indicia of incompetence that counsel for
Appellant repeatedly cites would have been insufficient to overcome the legal
presumption of competence, because such does not suggest that Appellant was
incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against her or of
assisting in her own defense.
{¶41} Accordingly, the record does not show a reasonable likelihood that the trial
court would have found Appellant incompetent to stand trial.
{¶42} Appellant also argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to support
his mitigation arguments with a psychological report or evaluation.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 12
{¶43} Upon review, we find that trial counsel in this matter presented extensive
mitigating evidence focused on Appellant’s dysfunctional family and upbringing, alleged abuse,
and traumatic events in her life. Further, defense counsel successfully negotiated a sentence
that did not include the death penalty.
{¶44} Based on the foregoing, we find Appellant has not demonstrated counsel's
performance fell below a reasonable standard of representation, nor has Appellant
demonstrated had counsel moved for a competency evaluation, she would have been
found incompetent to stand trial.
{¶45} Appellant’s first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶46} In her second assignment of error, Appellant argues that her sentence is
unconstitutional. We disagree.
{¶47} This Court reviews felony sentences using the standard of review set forth
in R.C. §2953.08. State v. Roberts, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2020 CA 0030, 2020-Ohio-6722,
¶13, citing State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59 N.E.3d 1231. R.C.
§2953.08(G)(2) provides we may either increase, reduce, modify, or vacate a sentence
and remand for sentencing where we clearly and convincingly find either the record does
not support the sentencing court's findings under R.C. §2929.13(B) or (D),
§2929.14(B)(2)(e) or (C)(4), or 2§929.20(1), or the sentence is otherwise contrary to law.
Id., citing State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209, 2014-Ohio-3177, 16 N.E.3d 659.
{¶48} When sentencing a defendant, the trial court must consider the purposes
and principles of felony sentencing set forth in R.C. §2929.11 and the seriousness and
recidivism factors in R.C. §2929.12. State v. Hodges, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99511,
2013-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 13
{¶49} “The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from
future crime by the offender and others, to punish the offender, and to promote the
effective rehabilitation of the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court
determines accomplish those purposes without imposing an unnecessary burden on state
or local government resources.” R.C. §2929.11(A). To achieve these purposes, the
sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the
offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution
to the victim of the offense, the public, or both. Id. Further, the sentence imposed shall be
“commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and
its impact on the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes by
similar offenders.” R.C. §2929.11(B).
{¶50} R.C. §2929.12 lists general factors which must be considered by the trial
court in determining the sentence to be imposed for a felony, and gives detailed criteria
which do not control the court's discretion, but which must be considered for or against
severity or leniency in a particular case. The trial court retains discretion to determine the
most effective way to comply with the purpose and principles of sentencing as set forth in
R.C. §2929.11 and R.C. §2929.12.
{¶51} Nothing in R.C. §2953.08(G)(2) permits this Court to independently weigh
the evidence in the record and substitute our own judgment for that of the trial court to
determine a sentence which best reflects compliance with R.C. §2929.11 and R.C.
§2929.12. State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649, 2020-Ohio-6729, ¶ 42. Instead, we may only
determine if a sentence is contrary to law. State v. Pettorini, 5th Dist. Licking No. 2020
CA 00057, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶ 15
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 14
{¶52} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial
court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. §2929.11, as well as the factors
listed in R.C. §2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the
defendant within the permissible statutory range.” Id. at ¶¶ 14-16, quoting State v. Dinka,
12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2019-03-022 & CA2019-03-026, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36.
{¶53} In this case, the Sentencing Entry states the Court considered the record,
all statements, any victim impact statement, the plea recommendation in this matter, as
well as the principles and purposes of sentencing under Ohio Revised Code §2929.11
and its balance of seriousness and recidivism factors under Ohio Revised Code
§2929.12.
{¶54} The court noted that Appellant had previously been found guilty of two (2)
unclassified felonies, one (1) felony of the first degree, one (1) felony of the third degree
and one (1) felony of the fifth degree.
{¶55} The court also made Judicial Findings that the Appellant had a warrant for
her arrest for a crime of violence when she committed this murder, that she assaulted
another inmate while in the jail, and that she shows no remorse.
{¶56} During sentencing, the trial court addressed the pre-sentence investigation:
THE COURT: I would like to note a few things that were noted in the
presentence investigation. One, at the time of committing this offense there
was a warrant for your arrest out of Licking County for assaulting the co-
defendant and then the nurses at the hospital and then the correction
officers and the officers who came to arrest you. You've been put in
lockdown in the jail at least two different occasions that I'm aware of. And
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 15
you were still in lockdown when you were going through the -- when you
committed your last -- you were in a lockdown cell when you assaulted
another defendant, and your comment was: The bitch deserved it. She's
been making me mad all day. I don't care. I'm in here for murder. I'll kill
another bitch. She was taken to the hospital and had stitches in her head.
That does not show remorse, it doesn't show that you're sorry, and it
does show why society needs to be protected from you.
You were taken away from your mother at age 11 because you
committed domestic violence. You were charged with it. There aren't too
many 11-year-olds going around committing domestic violence on their
mothers. I see people through here all the time who have had as bad an
experience as you've had in the foster care system. Some of them commit
crimes. Some of them become very good people because they were victims
of crimes. You have gone the other way and you took this girl's life. And
during the plea, you wanted to make sure your attorney corrected the record
so everybody in the room knew that you had told Pat Downs the day before
you were going to go kill her if she was still there. That's not the attitude of
somebody who's just mad and angry. That's just a bad attitude.
{¶57} (Sent. T. at 17-18).
{¶58} The trial court then imposed a sentence within the statutory range for the
offenses. The court further found, "Your attitude before, during, and after this warrants
that. You show no respect for human beings, let alone their lives. And with an attitude like
that and a history like that, that's the only appropriate sentence that I find." Id. at 19.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2021-0041 16
{¶59} Based on the foregoing, we find the sentences imposed are not clearly and
convincingly contrary to law in the instant case, and thus we do not have authority to
disturb the sentence on appeal.
{¶60} Appellant’s second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶61} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, Muskingum County, Ohio, is
affirmed.
By: Wise, P. J.
Delaney, J., and
Baldwin, J., concur.
JWW/kw 0525