S.C. Case No Defendant-Appellant. Pro Se Appellant IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellee,

Transcription

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee, -vs- MICAH BRAY Defendant-Appellant S.C. Case No On Appeal from the Clark County Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District Court of Appeals Case No. 10-CA-0014 MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO JURISDICTION OF APPELLANT MICAH BRAY D. ANDREW WILSON ( ) Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Ohio LISA M. FANNIN ( ) Assistant Prosecuting Attorney (COUNSEL OF RECORD) 50 E. Columbia Street, 4th Floor P.O. Box 1608 Springfield, Ohio (937) MICAH BRAY P.O. Box 56 L.E.C.I. Lebanon, Ohio (614) Pro Se Appellant COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF- APPELLEE

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS IS NOT A CASE OF PUBLIC AND GREAT GENERAL INTEREST AND DOES NOT INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION.: :...:1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE...:...:...:...:...1 STATEMENT OF FACTS...2 RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S FIRST AND SECOND PROPOSITION OF LAW...:...:4 RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S THIRD THROUGH NINTH PROPOSITIONS OF LAW...5 CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE :...5 Paee ii

3 THIS IS NOT A CASE OF GREAT PUBLIC AND GENERAL INTEREST AND DOES NOT INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION The facts of this case are not of great public or general interest and do not raise substantial constitutional questions. Appellant's arguments that the Second District Court of Appeals abused its discretion and ignored binding law set by this Court and the United States Supreme Court are without merit. Furthermore, Revised Code (illegal possession of a firearm in liquor permit premises) has not been "effectively repealed" and still applies to the facts of Appellant's case. Accordingly, Appellant has failed to show that his case is of great public and general interest and has not presented any substantial Constitutional questions. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Micah Bray was indicted on two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, two counts of felonious assault, one count of possessing a weapon under disability, one count of carrying a concealed weapon, one count of illegal possession of a firearm in liquor permit premises, and tampering with evidence. Shortly thereafter, Bray was indicted on another count of carrying a concealed weapon (09-CR-0732), which was consolidated into the present case (09-CR-0542). Bray entered a plea of no contest to the charge of possessing a weapon under disability and was sentenced to three years in prison. A jury trial was held between December 15 and December 22, 2009 on the remaining charges. The jury found Bray guilty on the charges of illegal possession of a firearm in liquor permit premises, carrying 1

4 a concealed weapon, and tampering with evidence. Bray was acquitted on the other charges. Bray was sentenced to five years in prison for tampering with evidence, five years in prison for the possession of a firearm in liquor permit premises which was merged with an 18 month sentence for carrying a concealed weapon, and one year in prison for a separate criminal nonsupport charge. All of Bray's sentences were ordered to run consecutively, for a total of 14 years in prison. STATEMENT OF FACTS The present case arises from the tragic and unnecessary death of William Blaine Lewis. Lewis was at the Knights of Pythias, a social club in Springfield, Ohio, with Diron Upshaw on the night of May 29, (Tr. at ). Lewis and Upshaw were both regulars and visited the club often. (Tr. at ). Also at the club that night was Micah Bray, who had arrived with his cousins Nakia Johnson and Heather Bray as well as their friend Herlanda Portis. (Tr. at ). Micah Bray brought with him a handgun that he had received from a friend two to three years prior. (Tr. at 990). Bray testified at trial that he had the gun in his possession when he decided to go out that night. (Tr. at 965). Shortly before closing for the night, members of the club were notified that Lewis and Upshaw had brought weapons into the club. (Tr. at ) When members of the club approached Lewis and Upshaw to escort them out of the club, Lewis and Upshaw informed them that Bray had also brought a weapon. (Tr. at ). When members 2

5 of the club approached Bray about his weapon, he became agitated and aggressive. (Tr. at 667). As Bray, Lewis, and Upshaw were being escorted out of the club, Bray took out his gun and challenged Lewis to, "pull it, mother fucker, pull it." (Tr. at 819). When Bray and Lewis reached the front of the club they began arguing with one another. (Tr: at 669) Bray told Lewis, "Mother facker, you know, you know me, mother fucker, I got bodies." (Tr. at 821): Leon Howard testified at trial that Bray's use of the phrase "I got bodies" meant that Bray had previously killed someone. (Tr. at 821).. Bray reached over and poked Lewis in the head with his finger and Lewis responded by punching Bray. (Tr. at 669). As the two fell to the floor Bray fired two shots, one of which hit Lewis in the neck and the other hitting club member Leon Howard. (Tr. at 823). After the shooting, Lewis was attended to by club members as he patted himself to find where he had been shot. (Tr. 646). Before leaving the scene with his two cousins and a friend, Bray threatened club member Richard Howard by telling him, "I know where you live." (Tr. at ). Leon Howard was taken to the emergency room where he received eight stitches to his neck as a result of the gunshot wound. (Tr. at 460). William Blaine Lewis died that night as a result of the gunshot wounds he received. (Tr. at 406). After the shooting, Bray spent almost three weeks evading law enforcement by hiding out in various hotels throughout the area. (Tr. at 992). He was apprehended on June 19 after police officers received a tip that he had been seen at a local hotel. (Tr. at 754). When Bray saw police officers, he led them on a foot-chase through busy traffic across a four-lane road. (Tr. at 760). After refusing orders to stop, Bray was subdued by a Taser deployed by Detective Rick Brumfeld and taken into custody. (Tr. at ). 3

6 RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S FIRST AND SECOND PROPOSITIONS OF LAW The actions for which Appellant was convicted remain criminal under Revised Code Appellant claims in his first proposition of law that Revised Code (illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor permit premises) was "effectively repealed" when it was amended by Senate Bill 7. Revised Code , however, was not repealed by Senate Bill 7. Instead, it was amended to allow holders of valid concealed carry permits to possess firearms in liquor permit premises as long as they are not consuming beer or intoxicating liquors. Revised Code R.C still makes it a crime to possess a firearm in a liquor permit premises for those that do not have a valid concealed carry permit. Appellant did not possess a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm on the date of the events that led to his arrest and conviction. In fact, Appellant was under a disability due to a previous conviction and was not permitted to possess a firearm. Because Appellant did not possess a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon, his actions remain a crime under Revised Code Therefore, Appellant's first and second propositions of law should be overruled. 4

7 RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S THIRD THROUGH NINTH PROPOSITIONS OF LAW. A LPellant' s Thi r d through Ninth pr0positions of law lack merit and fail to present a case of eat 0ublic and general interest and do notpresent anv substantial Constitutional questions. In Appellant's third through ninth propositions of law, he presents arguments that lack merit and fail to present a case of great public and general interest and do not present any substantial Constitutional questions. Therefore, Appellants third through ninth propositions of law should be overruled. CONCLUSION The facts of this case are not of great public or general interest and do not raise substantial constitutional questions. Appellant's arguments that the Second District Court of Appeals abused its discretion and ignored binding law set by this Court and the United States Supreme Court are without merit. Furthermore, Revised Code (illegal possession of a fireann in liquor permit premises) has not been "effectively repealed" and still applies to the facts of Appellant's case. Accordingly, Appellant has failed to show that his case is of great public and general interest and has not presented any substantial Constitutional questions. Respectfully submitte4 LISA M. FANN ( ) Assistant Clark o Prosecutor 50 E. Columbia St., 4 Floor P.O. Box 1608 Springfield, OH Phone: (937) Fax: (937) Attorney for Appellee 5

8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing memorandum in opposition of jurisdiction was served by regular U.S. mail upon Micah Bray, No , P.O. Box 56, Lebanon Correctional Institute, Lebanon, Ohio on this 6^" day of March,