A recent ruling by the Second Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed parts of a lower court’s decision in the case of *State of Ohio v. Tieraice A. Thompson-Rivers*, while also reversing a portion of the original judgment. The case stemmed from a shooting incident in Springfield, Ohio, on May 10, 2022. The appellate court’s decision, issued on November 7, 2025, addressed several legal arguments raised by Thompson-Rivers, including claims of improper sentencing, ineffective counsel, and insufficient evidence.
Background of the Case
The incident leading to the charges involved a shooting near the intersection of Euclid and Tibbetts Avenues in Springfield. Thompson-Rivers was indicted on multiple felony charges by a Clark County grand jury. These charges included: two counts of improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation, discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited premises, two counts of felonious assault, having weapons while under disability (prior offense of violence), and having a weapon under disability (prior drug conviction).
The jury trial took place in September 2024, and Thompson-Rivers was found guilty on all counts. The trial court subsequently imposed prison sentences, including mandatory three-year terms on firearm specifications attached to several counts. Thompson-Rivers then appealed the verdict.
Appellate Court’s Ruling: Key Takeaways
The appellate court’s decision provides clarity on several important legal points. Here’s a breakdown:
Merger of Offenses: Thompson-Rivers argued that his convictions for felonious assault and discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises should have been merged. He claimed that both offenses arose from the same conduct and resulted in the same harm. The court, however, disagreed. It cited the principle that merger is not required if the offenses are dissimilar in their significance and resulting harm. The court found that the offense of discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited premises is intended to protect the public, while felonious assault requires a higher degree of culpability by the defendant. The court upheld the trial court’s decision not to merge the two charges.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Thompson-Rivers also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss the weapons under disability charges, based on the *New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen* Supreme Court decision. The appellate court found this argument unpersuasive. It cited the fact that *Bruen* did not directly address the specific issue of juvenile adjudications, and that at the time of Thompson-Rivers’s trial, the existing Ohio Supreme Court precedent found the statute in question constitutional. The court concluded that counsel’s failure to file a motion to dismiss did not fall below the professional norms of reasonableness.
Sufficiency of the Evidence: A central part of the appeal involved the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. Thompson-Rivers argued that the state did not provide enough evidence to support his convictions for improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation. The court agreed with him, in part. It found there was insufficient evidence to prove that bullets struck the residence at 1004 Tibbetts Avenue as a result of the shooting. The court vacated the conviction for the count associated with 1004 Tibbetts Avenue. However, the court found the evidence sufficient to support the conviction related to the residence at 1002 Tibbetts Avenue.
Manifest Weight of the Evidence: Thompson-Rivers contended that his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court considered this argument, focusing on the identification of Thompson-Rivers as one of the shooters. The court found that the jury’s decision to credit the testimony of Detective Miller, who identified Thompson-Rivers, was not against the weight of the evidence. However, the court agreed that the conviction related to 1004 Tibbetts Avenue was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as it lacked sufficient evidentiary support.
Prosecutorial Misconduct: Finally, Thompson-Rivers alleged prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the prosecution failed to correct misleading testimony. The court found no prosecutorial misconduct. The court stated that although a perceived inconsistency in the testimony existed, it did not rise to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. The court added that since it vacated Thompson-Rivers’s conviction as it relates to 1004 Tibbetts Avenue, any potential prejudice in being convicted of two offenses rather than one had been remedied.
The Outcome
The Second Appellate District Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in part, specifically upholding the convictions for felonious assault and the conviction related to 1002 Tibbetts Avenue. However, it reversed the conviction for improperly discharging a firearm at or into a habitation as it related to 1004 Tibbetts Avenue. The court also ordered the costs to be split evenly between Thompson-Rivers and the state.