State v. English
2015 Ohio 3227
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Cierra English struck and dragged Raymond Fisher with her car and also hit Mark Lavender outside the Hustler Club on May 18, 2013; incident recorded on surveillance video.
- English and Fisher had recently ended a relationship; English testified she panicked after prior tire-slashing incidents and did not intend to hit Fisher.
- Jury convicted English on three counts of felonious assault (two counts relating to Fisher under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (A)(2); one count relating to Lavender).
- Trial court sentenced English to concurrent five-year terms on two counts and a consecutive two-year term on the third, for an aggregate seven-year sentence.
- On appeal English challenged (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for discovery/subpoena failures, (2) failure to merge allied offenses for Fisher, and (3) imposition of consecutive sentences.
- Appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: ineffective-assistance claim rejected on direct appeal (facts outside record); two convictions related to Fisher must merge; consecutive sentence upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for discovery/subpoena failures | State: trial record reflects fair proceeding; no reversible error shown | English: counsel failed to turn over texts and subpoena witnesses, causing prejudice | Overruled on direct appeal — claim rests on evidence outside record; appropriate in postconviction proceedings |
| 2. Merger of allied offenses (two counts re: Fisher) | State: conduct can be parsed into sub-acts (striking then driving over) showing separate animus | English: both counts arose from a single rapid act causing a single harm to Fisher | Sustained — plain error found; two felonious-assault counts against Fisher merge into one |
| 3. Consecutive sentences validity | State: consecutive term justified because harm was great/unusual and victims were separate | English: merger reduces number of offenses making consecutive finding defective | Overruled — trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings; consecutive term supported by separate victims and record shows required analysis |
| 4. Reviewability / Proper remedy for claims outside record | State: direct appeal limited to record; postconviction is mechanism for extrarecord claims | English: sought relief on direct appeal based on extrarecord materials | Held for State — appellate court cannot consider de hors-record facts on direct appeal; postconviction remedy required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio 2000) (claims relying on facts outside trial record are for postconviction relief)
- State v. Cooperrider, 4 Ohio St.3d 226 (Ohio 1983) (postconviction is proper vehicle for ineffective assistance claims based on extrinsic evidence)
- State v. Logan, 60 Ohio St.2d 126 (Ohio 1979) (animus defined as immediate motive; may be inferred from circumstances)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2014) (trial court need not recite statutory language verbatim for consecutive-sentence findings if record supports analysis)