State v. Goodner
195 Ohio App. 3d 636
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Goodner was stopped Feb. 20, 2010 by Dayton police matching a robbery suspect description.
- Officers recovered a BB gun from Goodner and a black neoprene half-mask from his jacket.
- Detectives prepared photo spreads; witnesses identified Goodner in multiple robberies.
- Five robberies between Jan. 19 and Feb. 16, 2010 were charged as aggravated-robbery counts (deadly weapon).
- Goodner was indicted Mar. 17, 2010; pleaded no contest to five counts on July 21, 2010; sentenced to 4 years per count consecutive (total 20 years).
- Goodner challenged (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) severance denial, (3) suppression of identifications, (4) whether BB gun is a deadly weapon affecting pleas; appellate court affirmed all rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance regarding weapon deadly-weapon determinations | Goodner contends counsel failed to inform whether BB gun is a deadly weapon. | Goodner argues lack of information rendered pleas and trial ineffective. | No ineffective assistance; record shows proper Crim.R. 11 compliance and admissions via pleas. |
| Validity of no-contest pleas (Crim.R. 11 compliance) | Plea not knowing/voluntary due to misunderstanding whether BB gun is deadly weapon. | Record shows trial court complied with Crim.R.11 and Boykin concerns. | Plea valid; substantial compliance with Crim.R.11(C)(2) suffices; pleas knowingly entered. |
| Joinder and denial of severance | Joinder prejudiced defendant by mixing varied offenses and weapon types. | Joinder was proper; defenses could be separately tried; prejudice not shown. | Joinder proper; denial of severance not an abuse of discretion. |
| Admission of identification testimony (Waylan) | Photospread identifications were unduly suggestive and unreliable. | Two arrays were used; no improper influence; reliability controls admissible. | Identifications were reliable under totality-of-circumstances; suppression denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bird, 81 Ohio St.3d 582 (1998) (plea admits factual basis; Bird governs knowingness of plea and factual admission)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance suffices for non-constitutional rights in Crim.R. 11)
- State v. McGrady, 2010-Ohio-3243 (2010) (Crim.R. 11 compliance evaluated under totality of circumstances; prejudice standard)
- State v. Lott, 57 Ohio St.3d 160 (1990) (joinder severance considerations; weighing prejudice vs. efficiency)
- State v. Broadnax, 2007-Ohio-6584 (2007) (joinder deemed proper where evidence simple and direct across counts)
- State v. Sherls, 2002-Ohio-939 (2002) (reliability of identifications after suggestive procedures depends on totality of circumstances)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (identification reliability central to due-process challenge to suggestive methods)