The Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, has affirmed the conviction of Victorious Carter-El for his role in a fatal shooting that occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, in January 2023. Carter-El, who was 16 at the time of the crime, was found guilty of murder, felonious assault, and discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises. The court rejected all four assignments of error raised by Carter-El in his appeal, upholding the original trial court’s decision.
The Crime and Initial Proceedings
The case stems from a shooting in the parking lot of an In & Out Beverage store. The victim was shot multiple times by three individuals during an attempted robbery and later died at University Hospitals. The prosecution presented evidence that Carter-El was one of the three shooters.
The initial proceedings began in juvenile court, where Carter-El was charged with multiple counts, including aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. A key piece of evidence was surveillance video from the store, which captured the events leading up to the shooting. A detective testified that he identified Carter-El in the video based on prior interactions with the suspect. DNA evidence also placed Carter-El inside the vehicle used in the crime.
The juvenile court held a bindover hearing, where the state presented evidence and the court determined the case should be transferred to adult court. This decision was based on the severity of the charges and the evidence presented.
The case then moved to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, where Carter-El was indicted on the same charges.
Trial Testimony and Evidence
During the trial, the state presented testimony from several witnesses, including K.L., who was present in the vehicle during the shooting. K.L. testified that he, along with Carter-El and two other individuals, planned to rob the victim. He identified Carter-El as one of the shooters and described how the group approached the victim, pulled out handguns, and fired. K.L. stated they targeted the victim because they thought he might be drunk and therefore an easier target.
Surveillance video played a crucial role, showing the red Kia Soul, the vehicle used by the suspects, circling the store before the shooting. Stills from the video were presented as evidence, showing the individual in a blue hoodie, identified by K.L. as Carter-El, pointing a gun at the victim. DNA evidence found on a Faygo soda bottle and the passenger door handle of the vehicle further linked Carter-El to the crime.
The state also introduced testimony from Detective Hayduk, who explained his investigation and pointed out how the surveillance footage suggested the group was “casing that store and stalking the victim.”
Motions and Sentencing
At the close of the state’s case, Carter-El’s defense counsel moved for acquittal on all counts. The trial court granted the motion for aggravated murder, finding a lack of evidence of “prior calculation and design,” but denied it for the remaining counts. The jury ultimately found Carter-El guilty on the remaining charges, including the associated firearm specifications.
The trial court sentenced Carter-El to a term of 30 years to life for aggravated murder. Additional time was added for the firearm specifications, resulting in a total sentence of 36 years to life. Due to his age at the time of the offense, Carter-El is eligible for parole after serving 25 years.
Appellate Arguments and Court’s Findings
Carter-El appealed his conviction, raising four main arguments:
* Sufficiency of the Evidence: He argued that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
* Manifest Weight of the Evidence: He contended that the conviction was against the weight of the evidence, suggesting the jury made a mistake in its assessment.
* Sentencing: He claimed the trial court did not give enough weight to his age as a mitigating factor during sentencing.
* Bindover: He argued the juvenile court erred in its decision to transfer the case to adult court.
The Court of Appeals addressed each of these arguments and ultimately rejected them all.
Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court found that the state presented enough evidence to support the convictions. The court pointed to K.L.’s testimony, the surveillance video, and the DNA evidence as sufficient to establish Carter-El’s identity as one of the perpetrators and to prove the elements of aggravated robbery and aggravated murder. The court emphasized that it was not its role to re-weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses, as that is the responsibility of the jury.
In addressing the manifest weight of the evidence argument, the court found no reason to overturn the jury’s verdict. The court noted that the jury was in the best position to assess the credibility of K.L., the key witness, and to weigh the evidence presented. The court concluded that this was not an exceptional case where the jury lost its way and created a miscarriage of justice.
Addressing the sentencing argument, the court noted that Carter-El did not object to his sentence on constitutional grounds at the trial court level, thus waiving any constitutional arguments. The court also found that the trial court had adequately complied with its obligation to consider Carter-El’s age as a mitigating factor, as required by law. The court pointed out that the trial court specifically mentioned that it was taking into account the factors outlined in the relevant statute, including Carter-El’s age and the characteristics associated with youth.
Finally, the court addressed the bindover argument. The court found that the juvenile court correctly applied the law in transferring the case to adult court. The court noted that the charges against Carter-El qualified for mandatory bindover and that the state presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that Carter-El committed the charged offenses.
The Court of Appeals, therefore, affirmed the lower court’s decision in its entirety.