Login | April 24, 2024
Taco Bell fracas case reversed by 9th District
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: March 12, 2019
A Summit County trial court did not properly advise a man accused of getting into a melee with Taco Bell employees of the dangers of self-representation, according to the 9th District Court of Appeals.
Following a bench trial, Justin Evans appealed his aggravated burglary conviction and five-year prison sentence.
Court records show that Evans, his wife and a teenage boy entered a Cuyahoga Falls Taco Bell in the late evening hours of April 14, 2017. The defendant reportedly got into an altercation with several employees after the restaurant’s dining room had closed for the night.
Evans decided to represent himself at trial after learning his wife and co-defendant, Ashley Morris, intended to testify against him. Morris was an assistant manager at the restaurant.
Evans argued the trial court did not take the proper steps to make sure his waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent and voluntary.
The appellate panel agreed, reversing and remanding the felony conviction.
After a brief colloquy regarding the jury waiver, the trial court held a brief recess for Morris to issue a statement.
After the recess, Evans asked if he could represent himself to question the witnesses. Evans told the judge he felt trial counsel was a “great attorney,” but he thought witnesses would be less likely to misrepresent facts if he had the opportunity to ask questions.
The judge told Evans it would first be necessary to “go over a few things.” Evans stressed that it would be harder for his wife to lie if he was asking the questions.
“After reviewing the record, we cannot say that Evans knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel,” 9th District Judge Donna Carr said in her majority opinion. “Though Evans was seemingly pleased with the performance of trial counsel, he sought to represent himself after learning that his wife planned to testify against him. The state acknowledges that Evans’ decision to proceed pro se was a ‘last minute decision.’
“The trial court engaged in a discussion with Evans where it emphasized that trial counsel was a well-respected attorney and that Evans’ lack of familiarity with the evidentiary rules would put him at a disadvantage at trial. Significantly, however, the trial court made no mention of the actual charges against Evans or the existence of lesser-included offenses. Further, the trial court did not discuss the range of allowable punishments, nor did it reference possible defenses. While the trial court noted that the matter was ‘very serious,’ it did not engage in a dialogue that would have given Evans a ‘broad understanding of the whole matter.’ It follows that under the totality of the circumstances, Evans was not adequately informed of the dangers of self-representation.”
However, the panel rejected Evan’s argument that his conviction was based on insufficient evidence.
The appellant claimed the state failed to present evidence that he acted with force, stealth or deception when he entered Taco Bell. Evans said he simply followed his wife – who had keys to the restaurant - inside to get food. Evans also argued he did not initiate any of the physical confrontations.
The appellate court noted the sufficiency challenge needed addressed since a reversal on sufficiency grounds would bar retrial.
The state presented evidence at trial stating:
Evans and Morris were married in 2017 shortly after Evans ended a relationship with J.J., another Taco Bell employee. The night of the incident, the couple picked up a teenage boy who was related to Evans before driving to Taco Bell.
When the trio arrived, only the drive-through window was open and the dining room doors were locked. When J.J. saw the group, she locked herself in the cooler for safety and tried to call police, but there was no cell phone reception. Morris testified that Evans took her keys and gave them to the juvenile so he could open the door. Morris did not have the right to bring anyone into the restaurant at that time.
The general manager was cleaning up and told the group to leave. Evans pointed out J.J. to the juvenile, who then began throwing punches. The manager pushed the juvenile toward the front of the store. The juvenile threw a plastic container at M.S., a woman working the drive-through window. Evans and the juvenile grabbed M.S. and attempted to pull her over the counter. When A.K., the general manager,intervened, Evans and the juvenile punched him repeatedly. M.S. tried to stop the attack by using a broom against Evans, who wrestled it away and struck her with it.
The panel found the evidence was sufficient to support the aggravated burglary conviction.
“A chaotic scene unfolded as soon as the group entered,” Judge Carr wrote. “Though Evans suggests that he merely stood by the counter during the fracas, the evidence suggests that the juvenile attacked J.J. at Evans’ direction. Evans also worked with the juvenile in an attempt to pull M.S. over the counter. When A.K. intervened, Evans punched A.K. repeatedly.”
Appellate judges Julie Schafer and Lynne Callahan concurred.
The case is cited State v. Evans, 2019-Ohio-603.