The Akron Legal News

Man who lured murder victim with fake drug deal loses his appeal

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: March 31, 2014

The judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas was affirmed last week when the 1st District Court of Appeals ruled that Antonio Valines was properly convicted of aggravated murder.

The events leading to Valines’ arrest took place in November 2011.

According to case summary, Dionte Armstead went to the Mt. Airy neighborhood in Cincinnati in order to sell a large quantity of marijuana to Valines.

Later that night, Cincinnati police responded to reports of shots fired at an apartment complex in the neighborhood.

When the officers arrived at the complex they saw Cortaize Parker in the parking lot throwing a digital scale into a garbage can.

The police said Parker seemed agitated so they took him into custody.

Inside the complex police found the body of Armstead, shot numerous times, in the second floor hallway.

Outside of the building officers located a Glock handgun along with a large amount of marijuana concealed in a wooded area.

Shortly after arriving at the scene, investigating officers received a report that a gunshot victim had been taken to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center.

There, police found Valines, who claimed that he had been shot during an attempted robbery.

Valines said he had shot Armstead in self-defense after he had been fired upon.

A jury trial followed where Parker testified that, on the day of the shooting, Valines had called him asking to borrow a scale.

Parker, who lived in the complex, went to retrieve the scale from his car and bring it back to his apartment when he heard gunshots and decided to dispose of the scale instead. He confirmed that Valines was known to carry a Glock.

Valines testified in his defense, claiming that he had arranged to buy marijuana from his father and a man named Dionte Thompson. He said he also intended to sell the Glock to his father.

Instead of following the plan, Thompson arrived with Armstead and held Valines at gunpoint.

According to Valines, the pair kept the marijuana and took his money then began shooting.

Valines claimed that he grabbed the marijuana from Thompson, shot at Armstead and fled from the hallway of the apartment building.

He told the court he concealed the marijuana and the gun in a wooded area near the building.

The jury found Valines guilty and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the aggravated murder along with a consecutive three-year prison term for a firearm specification and a 36-month term for having a weapon under disability.

Upon appeal, he claimed that the trial court erred in admitting improper prior-acts evidence.

Specifically, he disputed the state’s ability to introduce evidence of his previous robbery conviction and his reputation for carrying a Glock.

Judge Lee Hildebrandt, writing on behalf of the court of appeals, cited Evid.R. 404(B) which states that “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action or conformity therewith.”

However, the Evidence Rules also state that prior-acts evidence may be admissible in order to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.

“In this case, there was no plain error in the admission of the evidence,” wrote Judge Hildebrandt.

The appellate panel noted that, in his prior robbery, Valines had lured his victims to a designated location under the pretense of a drug deal. He then robbed the victims at gunpoint.

“This same ruse was also the alleged modus operandi in the instant case,” wrote Judge Hildebrandt. “As for the testimony that he had been known to carry a gun, we cannot say that such evidence likely affected the outcome of the trial, in light of the other evidence adduced by the state.”

Valines proceeded to argue that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence but the appellate panel disagreed.

He contended that his attempt to obtain a scale from Parker was inconsistent with the state’s theory that he had intended to rob Armstead and instead demonstrated that he planned to purchase the marijuana.

“We find no merit in this argument,” wrote Judge Hildebrandt. “Valines’ telephone call (to Parker) about the scale was consistent with the state’s theory that he had intended to lure the victims into the apartment building where he could rob them; the request to weigh the marijuana was simply part of the subterfuge.”

The court of appeals went on to overrule the remainder of Valines’ assignments of error, including claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that he was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct.

The appellate panel did find, however, that the Hamilton County court failed to make the proper findings before imposing consecutive sentences and the case was remanded for resentencing.

Presiding Judge Penelope Cunningham and Judge Sylvia Hendon concurred.

The case is cited State v. Valines, 2014-Ohio-890.

[Back]