State v. D'Amico
2017 Ohio 1352
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On March 17, 2013, Thomas J. D’Amico attacked R.F. (his former wife's fiancé) from behind, striking him with a beer bottle which shattered and causing multiple lacerations; he was indicted for felonious assault, menacing by stalking, aggravated menacing, and violating a protection order.
- D’Amico pleaded guilty to felonious assault (second-degree felony) and violating a protection order (first-degree misdemeanor); other counts were dismissed; trial court sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment (concurrent with six months).
- D’Amico appealed; this court previously affirmed, later granted motions to reopen the appeal, and again reviewed the convictions and sentence.
- At sentencing, the court viewed surveillance video, received victim statements and a presentence investigation report describing stabbing with broken bottle, and considered D’Amico’s criminal history, lack of remorse, prior harassment, and psychological statements including homicidal ideation.
- D’Amico raised three issues on reopening: (1) sentence based on facts not in record (video interpretation), (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing for not correcting the court’s interpretation, and (3) ineffective assistance of prior appellate counsel for an incomplete record (missing video and PSI).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (D'Amico) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court relied on facts not in the record when characterizing the assault as extremely violent and describing a stabbing to the neck | Court misinterpreted surveillance video; there was no evidence of a neck stabbing and court relied heavily on incorrect view | Video, PSI, and victim statements support the court’s interpretation; court considered multiple factors, not solely the video | Court held the record supports the trial court’s findings; video is at least inconclusive regarding stabbing and court did not err |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing for failing to correct the court’s alleged misinterpretation of the video | Counsel’s failure to object prejudiced D’Amico and likely affected sentence length | Because court did not err, there is no deficient performance or prejudice from counsel’s actions | Court held ineffective-assistance claim fails because no prejudice shown given no error by trial court |
| Whether prior appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to provide a complete record (surveillance video and PSI) | Incomplete record deprived appellate review and prejudiced D’Amico’s appeal | Any record deficiency was remedied when this Court reopened the appeal and considered the complete record; no prejudice shown | Court held no ineffective-assistance by appellate counsel because D’Amico suffered no prejudice—the record was corrected and outcome unchanged |
| Whether the sentence (within statutory range) was contrary to law or unsupported by statute | Sentence was unjustified due to reliance on improper facts | Sentence is within statutory range and trial court properly considered statutory sentencing factors | Court affirmed sentence as supported by the record and not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences—vacate/modify only if clear and convincing evidence record does not support court’s findings)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (Ohio 1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- Foster v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (trial courts have discretion to impose prison sentences within statutory range without making specific findings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)