[Cite as State v. Percy,
2025-Ohio-723.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs- :
:
BRANDON PERCY : Case No. 2024 CA 0006
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 2022 CR 0702
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 4, 2025
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
MEGAN HOBART WILLIAM T. CRAMER
38 South Park Street 1554 Polaris Parkway
Mansfield, OH 44902 Suite 325
Columbus, OH 43240
King, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Brandon Percy appeals the August 17, 2023 judgment
of conviction and sentence of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-
Appellee is the State of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On October 6, 2022, the Richland County Grand Jury returned an
indictment charging Percy as follows:
{¶ 3} Count one: Discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises with
serious physical harm pursuant to R.C. 2923.162(A)(3), a felony of the first degree.
{¶ 4} Count two: Felonious assault with serious physical harm to B.H. pursuant
to R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), a felony of the second degree.
{¶ 5} Count three: Felonious assault, attempting or causing serious physical
harm by means of a deadly weapon to B.H. pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a felony of
the second degree.
{¶ 6} Count four: Felonious assault, attempting or causing physical harm to S.C.
by means of a deadly weapon pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the second
degree.
{¶ 7} Count five: Felonious assault, attempting or causing physical harm to A.D.
by means of a deadly weapon pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), a felony of the second
degree.
{¶ 8} Count six: Improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle pursuant to R.C.
2923.16(B), a felony of the fourth degree.
{¶ 9} Count seven: Improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle pursuant to
R.C. 2923.16(A), a felony of the fourth degree.
{¶ 10} Counts one, two, three, four, five, and seven included firearm specifications.
{¶ 11} Percy pled not guilty to the charges and elected to proceed to a jury trial
which took place July 13-26, 2023 wherein the following facts were elicited.
{¶ 12} This matter began following an argument between a group of older teens
on Facebook on April 14, 2022. The cyber debate escalated when Dakota Price told B.H.,
a victim in this matter, to meet for a physical fight. Price directed B.H. to meet her at a
park in Galion. Sabra Edwards drove herself, Percy, who was her best friend and
roommate at the time, Price, Price's sister, Aaron Obenour, and Nautica Johnson to
Galion. When B.H. failed to show, the group went back to Mansfield. Transcript of trial
(T.) 916-917.
{¶ 13} Edwards went back to her house and changed cars. She exchanged her
mother's car for her silver Chevy SUV and she and Percy went back to Price's home. T.
974.
{¶ 14} At some point the meeting spot to fight became the King's Mini Mart directly
across the street from Price's home. The group then hung out on the stairs in front of
Price's home. Present were Percy, Edwards, Johnson, Obenour, Price and members of
her family.
{¶ 15} Meanwhile, B.H., her friend S.C. and 9-year-old A.D. were traveling to a
Mansfield pet shop to purchase a hamster for A.D. Thereafter, they drove to King's Mini
Mart, but instead of stopping, repeatedly drove by yelling at the group on the steps and
taking photos. The third time they drove by, the group chased their car on foot. On the
following pass, the group threw things at their car. None of these people had ever met in
person, but B.H. recognized two individuals from their Facebook profile pictures. T. 371-
377.
{¶ 16} Before B.H.'s last pass, Percy and Edwards left for a few minutes, returned
and pulled into the mini mart parking lot. Percy and Edwards had given Obenour and
Johnson a ride to the Price home. When Obenour and Johnson saw Percy and Edwards
return, they went across the street and got into the car for a ride home. Security video
from the mini mart shows Edwards driving, the passenger seat empty, someone in the
back seat opening the door from the inside, and Obenour and Johnson getting into the
back seat. T. 549-556, 1314-1315, State's exhibit 11.
{¶ 17} Obenour, Johnson, and Percy were all initially in the back seat of the Chevy.
When B.H. and S.C. drove by again, Edwards started chasing them. Percy said "I've got
something for them." Obenour got in the front passenger seat about the same time. T.
556-559, 564.
{¶ 18} Initially, Percy, Obenour, and Johnson were just hanging out of the windows
of the Chevy yelling at B.H. and S.C., but then Obenour and Johnson saw Percy pull a
purple and black gun with an extended clip out of his waistband. Shots were fired from
Edwards' Chevy which struck S.C.'s vehicle, B.H., and narrowly missed A.D. Edwards
turned away from S.C.'s path of travel when she heard shots fired. When S.C. realized
B.H. had been shot, she pulled over and called police. T. 377-378, 550, 768-776, 984-
988, 1468
{¶ 19} B.H. was transported to a hospital where she underwent surgery to remove
a bullet lodged in her colon. She lost half her colon, part of her small intestines, and
endured a dangerous infection. T. 379-384.
{¶ 20} While all of that was happening, Percy's girlfriend, Haillie Schaub, was trying
to contact Percy. Percy was usually prompt in responding to Schaub's texts, but had not
responded for hours. The two used the smartphone application Life360 which allows
users to track the location of others. Because Percy did not have cell phone data, his only
worked when he could access wifi. When Percy finally responded to Schaub she asked
why he went to Galion as she had seen his location there. Percy replied " we had to slide
on some mfs baby, today been wild asf." Schaub understood "slide" to meant a negative
meet up, "mfs" as mother fuckers and "asf" meaning as fuck. T. 714-719. Percy and
Edwards then called Schuab at approximately 8:30 p.m. using Edwards' phone. They told
Schuab they had to "slide" on some people because of an argument on Facebook
between Edwards and a bunch of her friends. Percy got involved because Edwards was
involved. Percy boasted about shooting 18-20 times out the window of the Chevy, said
Johnson and Obenour were with them, and Edwards was driving. He struck Schaub as
being excited about all of this. Edwards and Percy said they really did not want Obenour
and Johnson in the car because they were afraid Johnson would say something. T. 718-
727. Sometime before the events herein, Percy had purchased a gun – a purple and black
SCCY 9-millimeter which he named Daphne – and asked Schaub if she wanted to learn
to shoot. T. 708-709.
{¶ 21} Later that evening, Schaub sent Percy a news article about the shooting via
Facebook Messenger. Percy sent a laugh emoji back. He then told Schaub he hid the
gun and he, Edwards' mother and Edwards hid Edwards' car in a neighbor's garage. T.
730-735, 743-744.
{¶ 22} An investigation onto the matter ensued. Initially B.H. could not tell officers
what had happened. While hospitalized she heard rumors about what happened which
she adopted as truthful, but different people told her different things. B.H. did recall she
never saw a gun that day and could only see three people in the car, Johnson, Obenour,
and Edwards. In one statement to police, she said Johnson and Obenour both shot her
and that she did not see Percy in the car. In a second statement she included Percy as
being in the car but was inconsistent as to whether or not he had a gun. T. 389-396, 447,
1328, 1335.
{¶ 23} S.C. also gave conflicting statements and testified on behalf of Percy at trial.
On body camera footage from the scene, S.C. stated she saw a white guy with a bun and
a black girl. This matches the description of Obenour and Johnson. She told police
Obenour was driving, and maintained this assertion on direct examination. After being
shown the security video from King's Mini Mart showing Obenour getting into the back
seat she conceded she was wrong. She originally told police there were six people in the
Chevy, that there was a black male with a red hoodie in the car, and she did not see the
shooter. S.C. testified at trial that she saw a black female wearing a gray tank top and her
hair in a bun hanging out the front passenger side window waiving a gun and yelling a lot,
then heard shots. T. 1467-1479, 1489-1493,1502, 1506, 1508.
{¶ 24} Johnson stated Percy shot out the windows of the Chevy with a black and
purple gun with a really long clip. She said she never touched the gun, but did not know
whether or not Obenour did. She stated everyone else in the car was "freaking out." T.
566-571, 575, 578.
{¶ 25} Obenour stated Percy did the shooting with a "purpleish" gun with a "25
clip." After the shooting, Obenour stated Edwards and Percy told them to "keep this
between us." Obenour and Johnson later lied to police twice stating they jumped out of
the car before any shooting started and then said two dark-skinned people were doing
the shooting. T. 775-778, 795-797, 811, 832.
{¶ 26} McKenzie Cameron called police and advised Percy and Edwards had
come to her house after the shooting. She stated Percy was bragging about the shooting
and made it sound like it was fun, but Edwards was anxious and scared. She stated Percy
asked Cameron's paramour for cotton swabs and Cameron saw Percy take apart a purple
gun with an extended clip and use the swabs to clean it. T. 945-950.
{¶ 27} Edwards was also charged in this matter, but negotiated a plea in exchange
for her testimony at trial. She stated Percy was the only person in the car with a gun and
the gun was purple and black with an extended clip. She stated Percy was in the back
seat and shot out of the rear driver's side a couple times. This panicked everyone else in
the car and caused Johnson to start crying. Edwards stated she turned right so Percy
would not have a shot, but that did not stop him. He pushed Johnson's head down and
started shooting over her out of the rear passenger window. Edwards had seen Percy
with the gun before. She also had messages from Percy which included a photo of the
gun. Officers also discovered security video showing Percy and Edwards hiding the car.
She stated Percy hid the purple gun, then later traded it for a revolver. T. 984-989, 991,
996-997, 1012, 1022, State's exhibit 37.
{¶ 28} The state requested and received a jury instruction for complicity as to all
counts. After hearing the evidence and deliberating, the jury declined to find Percy guilty
as the principal, but convicted him on all counts as complicit as well as each firearm
specification. Percy was subsequently sentenced to 30-35 years incarceration.
{¶ 29} Percy filed an appeal and the matter is now before this court for review. He
raises two assignments of error as follow:
I
{¶ 30} "APPELLANT'S STATE AND FEDERAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE
VIOLATED BY CONVICTIONS ON A COMPLICITY THEORY THAT WERE NOT
SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTS TAKEN BY
APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRINCIPAL OFFENDER."
II
{¶ 31} "THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT APPELLANT'S
CONVICTIONS ON A COMPLICITY THEORY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTS TAKEN BY APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRINCIPAL
OFFENDER."
I, II
{¶ 32} Because they are interrelated, we address Percy's assignments of error
together. In these assignments of error, Percy does not challenge any one conviction or
element. Instead, he advances a general argument that his convictions are against the
manifest weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Specifically, Percy argues because the
state's evidence only painted to him as the principal offender he could not be convicted
on a complicity theory as the state presented no evidence of complicit acts. We disagree.
Sufficiency and Manifest Weight
{¶ 33} On review for sufficiency, a reviewing court is to examine the evidence at
trial to determine whether such evidence, if believed, would support a conviction. State v.
Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991). "The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Jenks at
paragraph two of the syllabus, following Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307 (1979). On
review for manifest weight, a reviewing court is to examine the entire record, weigh the
evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and
determine "whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and
created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the conviction must be reversed and
a new trial ordered." State v. Martin,
20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). See also,
State v. Thompkins,
78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997). The granting of a new trial "should be
exercised only in the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the
conviction."
Martin at 175.
{¶ 34} "Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same
probative value," State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph one of the syllabus,
because "[t]he intent of an accused person dwells in his mind. Not being ascertainable by
the exercise of any or all of the senses, it can never be proved by the direct testimony of
a third person, and it need not be." In re Washington,
1998-Ohio-627, 340, quoting State
v. Huffman,
131 Ohio St. 27 (1936), paragraph four of the syllabus.
Complicity
{¶ 35} R.C. 2923.03(A)(2) provides in pertinent part "no person, acting with the
kind of culpability required for the commission of an offense shall . . . aid or abet another
in committing the offense."
{¶ 36} Percy appears to argue that because the state presented evidence
implicating him only as the principal, he cannot be convicted as an aider and abettor.
However, "[a] complicity instruction is proper if 'the evidence adduced at trial could
reasonably be found to have proven the defendant guilty as an aider and abettor[.]' " State
v. Simpson, 2013-Ohio-4276, ¶ 33 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Perryman,
49 Ohio St.2d
14 (1976), paragraph five of the syllabus. Additionally, Percy does not challenge that
instruction here on appeal.
{¶ 37} "[To] support a conviction for complicity by aiding and abetting pursuant to
R.C. 2923.03(A)(2), the evidence must show that the defendant supported, assisted,
encouraged, cooperated with, advised, or incited the principal in the commission of the
crime, and that the defendant shared the criminal intent of the principal." State v. Johnson,
93 Ohio St.3d 240 (2001), syllabus.
{¶ 38} While the state need not establish the principal's identity, it must, at the very
least, prove that a principal committed the offense. State v. Perryman, 49 Ohio St.2d 14
(1976), paragraph four of the syllabus vacated in part on other grounds sub nom,
Perryman v. Ohio,
98 S.Ct. 3136 (1978); State v. Hill,
70 Ohio St.3d 25, 28 (1994). The
state does not need to prove that the accomplice and principal had a specific plan to
commit a crime. State v. Johnson,
93 Ohio St.3d 240, 245 (2001). The fact that the
defendant shares the criminal intent of the principal may be inferred from the
circumstances surrounding the crime, which may include the defendant's presence,
companionship, and conduct before and after the offense is committed.
Id. at 245-246.
Analysis
{¶ 39} Contrary to Percy's argument, the state presented sufficient evidence to
convict him on a complicity theory.
{¶ 40} While Percy argues the jury rejected the testimony of the state's witnesses
and accepted the testimony of his witness, there is no evidence in the record to support
such a conclusion. The evidence presented at trial was conflicting, including the testimony
of Percy's witness. When assessing witness credibility, however, "[t]he choice between
credible witnesses and their conflicting testimony rests solely with the finder of fact and
an appellate court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the finder of fact." State
v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (1986). Additionally, "the factfinder is free to believe all, part,
or none of the testimony of each witness appearing before it." State v. Pizzulo, 2010-
Ohio-2048, ¶ 11 (11th Dist.). Furthermore, if the evidence is susceptible to more than one
interpretation, a reviewing court must interpret it in a manner consistent with the verdict.
Id. The finder of fact may take note of the inconsistencies and resolve or discount them
accordingly, but such inconsistencies do not render defendant's conviction against the
manifest weight of the evidence. State v. Nivens, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 95APA09-1236
(1996).
{¶ 41} There was no dispute between the parties that shots were fired from
Edwards' Chevy into S.C.'s vehicle and some of those bullets struck B.H. The only dispute
was who fired those shots. As set forth in our statement of facts, the State presented
evidence from which a reasonable jury could find Percy supported, assisted, encouraged,
cooperated with, advised, or incited the principal in each crim charged. The State's
evidence demonstrated he was involved in the events of April 14, 2022 from beginning to
end. He rode with the others to Galion, was the only person who possessed a gun, stated
he "had something" for B.H. and S.C. as the chase began, was present in the Edwards'
vehicle during the shooting and did some shooting, hid the gun and later traded it for a
different gun. He assisted in hiding Edwards' car after the fact, bragged about the shooting
to his girlfriend and two other friends and seemed excited by the events. Percy's belated
messages to Schaub indicating they "had to slide on some people" further solidify Percy's
support, assistance, and encouragement in the car chase and shooting.
{¶ 42} Upon review of the record and transcript, we find Percy's convictions are
supported by sufficient evidence and are not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Accordingly, Percy's first and second assignments of error are overruled.
{¶ 43} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By King, J.,
Baldwin, P.J. and
Hoffman, J. concur.
