Background
Antawan Benson and a co-defendant fired Draco and AR-15-style firearms from across the street at three West Fairview Avenue residences in Dayton shortly after midnight on August 23, 2024. Bullets struck all three homes and killed 12-year-old I.C. in an upstairs bedroom at 33 West Fairview Avenue.
A jury convicted Benson of murder, improperly discharging a firearm at or into habitations, felonious assault, and discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises. He also pleaded guilty to aggravated menacing, and the trial court found him guilty of two weapons-under-disability counts. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 67 to 72.5 years to life, plus restitution of $1,965.98 to I.C.’s father.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. It held that reliable, credible evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Benson was competent to stand trial. Although Benson’s expert concluded that his intellectual and adaptive deficits rendered him incompetent, two other evaluators concluded that Benson understood the proceedings and could assist counsel. The trial court was entitled to find those evaluators more credible.
The court also upheld the restitution order. Although the trial court made no express ability-to-pay finding, its review of the presentence investigation supplied sufficient information about Benson’s age, health, education, work history, and plans to permit an inference that it considered his present and future ability to pay. Finally, the court held that the challenged offenses did not merge because they involved distinct harms or victims: firing across a public road harmed the public at large, firing into habitations harmed the structures, and felonious assault and murder harmed people.
Key Takeaways
- Competing competency opinions do not require reversal when credible evidence supports the trial court’s competency finding.
- A court may satisfy its restitution ability-to-pay obligation through information in a presentence investigation report, without an express on-the-record finding.
- Ohio allied-offense merger is unavailable when offenses cause separate, identifiable harms to the public, property, and individual victims.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference Ohio appellate courts give to trial courts resolving conflicting competency evidence. It also reinforces that a lengthy prison term does not, by itself, preclude restitution where the record supports an inference that the defendant may have future earning capacity.