The Akron Legal News

Man in botched robbery of Miami U. student loses appeal

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 20, 2014

In an opinion released recently by the 12th District Court of Appeals, aggravated robbery and kidnapping convictions were affirmed for a man who played an active role in a drug deal that went bad.

Defendant Dravaughn Sparks was indicted in June 2013 for his role in a bad drug deal.

The state alleged that Sparks acted or was complicit with another man in actions against a Miami University student.

Following a three-day trial, the jury found Sparks guilty of both counts and an additional gun specification.

The Butler County Court of Common Pleas merged the aggravated robbery and kidnapping convictions and sentenced Sparks to four years in prison.

It also ordered him to serve a mandatory consecutive three years for the firearm specification.

In his direct appeal to the 12th District, Sparks asserted that the state presented insufficient evidence and that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

A review of the record showed that the state presented evidence that on the day in question, Sparks, Kameron Williams and three others drove to Oxford, Ohio together.

Williams then exited the car and made contact with Andrew Livingstone, a Miami University student.

Livingstone testified that Williams asked him if he wanted to purchase marijuana and Livingstone replied in the affirmative.

He then told Williams he was on his way to meet Rob Dvorak and Williams accompanied him.

The three then worked out the details of the sale and Williams told them to give him the money and he would return to the car to get the marijuana.

Dvorak refused that offer, thinking Williams might simply take the money and leave. Instead, Dvorak went with Williams to the car, where he found four other people inside.

Nevertheless, Dvorak got into the backseat with Williams.

At that point, Sparks, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, yelled at Livingstone to leave.

Livingstone then turned and walked away from the car.

Dvorak testified that once he was inside the car Sparks started yelling at him so he handed Williams the money and asked to leave.

That was when he said the car started to move and he realized he would not be let out.

Dvorak told the court that Sparks took a gun from between his legs and started waving it around while he yelled.

Dvorak said he pleaded with the group to go to an ATM so he could get more money and they could “just call it a day.”

He said Sparks directed the driver and told her to pull up to an ATM.

While he was at the ATM, Dvorak recalled that Williams had a gun pressed against his back.

Still, he entered several incorrect PIN numbers to try and buy some time.

Eventually, Williams became agitated and Dvorak withdrew $100. Williams demanded more money but police arrived before Dvorak could comply.

The officers were able to block the car and secure its passengers. They found a loaded pistol in Williams’ pants as well as $165 cash, the exact amount Dvorak told officers he had given Williams.

On Sparks, the officers found a bag of marijuana and a knife.

Caitlyn Riddle testified on Sparks’ behalf. She told the court she was driving the car at the time in question and Williams told her that Dvorak just needed a ride home.

She denied hearing any yelling or seeing Sparks with a gun. She also denied that Sparks told her where to drive or demanded money from Dvorak.

“Weighing the evidence above, we cannot find that the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created a manifest miscarriage of justice in finding Sparks guilty of aggravated robbery and kidnapping,” Presiding Judge Robert Ringland wrote for the court.

The three-judge appellate panel determined that the state presented testimony establishing that Sparks was present during the offenses and actively participated in executing them.

Specifically, the testimony showed that Sparks directed Riddle where to drive, pointed a gun at the victim, supplied Williams with a gun, and shared an intent to rob the victim.

“While the defense presented testimony from Riddle that conflicts with Dvorak’s testimony, we agree with the state that ‘a conviction is not against the manifest weight of the evidence simply because the jury believed the prosecution testimony,’” Judge Ringland stated, citing State v. Coleman, 2011-Ohio-4564.

The judges found that the jury was within its discretion when it found the state’s witnesses more credible than Riddle.

Using that credibility, they further ruled that Dvorak’s testimony properly established all elements of each offense for which Sparks was convicted.

“In light of the foregoing, having found that Sparks’ conviction was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, Sparks’ assignments of error are overruled,” Judge Ringland wrote.

Judges Stephen Powell and Robin Piper concurred.

The case is cited State v. Sparks, 2014-Ohio-4277.

[Back]