State v. Davis
2018 Ohio 2984
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Terrance Davis pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford to one count of aggravated robbery (R.C. 2911.01(A)(3)) arising from an incident in which an elderly (77-year-old) victim was pushed, fell, suffered head injuries, and had her purse taken; a felonious-assault charge was dismissed in exchange for the plea.
- The trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, accepted the Alford plea, and ordered a presentence investigation (PSI).
- At sentencing the court heard statements from the prosecutor, defense counsel, Davis, and the victim; defense counsel stated he had read the PSI and found it accurate.
- The court sentenced Davis to 10 years imprisonment (within the 3–11 year statutory range for a first-degree felony) and five years of postrelease control.
- Appellate counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, asserting no meritorious issues but raising four potential assignments of error (PSI access, PSI impartiality, ineffective assistance, appellate-notice), and Davis filed a pro se brief challenging the accuracy of facts at plea/sentencing and the imposition of a maximum sentence.
- The Sixth District reviewed the record under Anders, rejected all claims, concluded the plea and sentence were valid and supported by the record, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant was denied access to or a chance to respond to the PSI | (State) Court complied with R.C. 2951.03 and provided opportunity to review/mitigate | (Davis) He lacked access and chance to respond to PSI | Court: Counsel and Davis spoke at sentencing and counsel confirmed he read the PSI; no deprivation. |
| Whether the PSI was biased because authored by former probation officer | (State) No record evidence of bias or prejudice from author | (Davis) Author was his past probation officer, creating unfair PSI | Court: No case law or record showing bias; statute provides mechanism to challenge inaccuracies; claim fails. |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by pressuring plea / promising sentence | (State) Plea was knowing and voluntary; counsel’s strategy is presumptively reasonable | (Davis) Counsel pressured plea and promised 5–7 years but he received 10 | Court: No deficient performance shown; plea and Crim.R. 11 colloquy proper; tactical plea decisions not reversible as ineffective assistance. |
| Whether appellant received proper notice of appellate rights | (State) Court informed Davis of limited appellate rights in open court and in journal entry | (Davis) Alleged failure to give proper appellate-notice | Court: Record shows notification; in any event any error would be nonprejudicial/moot because delayed appeal was allowed. |
| Whether Alford plea and factual proffers were insufficient/erroneous to support plea | (State) Record and factual basis (surveillance, victim injuries) supported acceptance of Alford plea | (Davis) State proffered unproven/inaccurate facts to elicit maximum sentence | Court: Alford plea knowingly entered; record contained sufficient factual basis; acceptance proper. |
| Whether the 10-year sentence was unlawful or unsupported | (State) Sentence within statutory range and court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; facts supported classification as most serious form | (Davis) Sentence imposed on unproven/inaccurate facts without required sentencing compliance | Court: Sentence is within range, court stated it considered statutory factors, and record supports discretionary sentence; not contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (guilty plea may be accepted despite protestation of innocence where plea is voluntary and factual basis exists)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1987) (Alford-plea principles and acceptance criteria)
- State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (Ohio 2000) (trial court not required to use specific language to show consideration of sentencing factors)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standards for appellate review of felony sentences)