2013 Ohio 3916
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Derrick Hanson was indicted on five counts (aggravated burglary, kidnapping, felonious assault, domestic violence, failure to comply); he pleaded guilty to four counts and the kidnapping count was dismissed.
- Plea was accepted in October 2012 and the court immediately sentenced Hanson to a total of 10 years’ imprisonment (concurrent terms for burglary, assault, domestic violence; consecutive 3-year term for failure to comply) plus five years postrelease control.
- At the plea/sentencing hearing Hanson was represented by assigned public defender Frank Cavallo; attorney Stephen Bradley (not formally entered as counsel) participated at Hanson’s request for mitigation.
- Hanson appealed asserting: (1) Crim.R. 11 noncompliance (plea not knowing/voluntary), (2) denial of his right to counsel of choice, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) due process violation based on alleged judicial bias at sentencing.
- The court reviewed the plea colloquy, attorney participation, sentencing hearing (including victim testimony and sentencing narrative), and rejected Hanson’s claims, affirming conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crim.R. 11 compliance (plea valid) | State: court informed Hanson of charges, penalties, and constitutional rights; plea was knowing and voluntary | Hanson: court misstated right to confront witnesses by saying “each of your lawyers… would have an opportunity to examine and cross-examine all of the state’s witnesses,” which he claims is inaccurate | Court: Crim.R. 11 satisfied; wording conveyed the right to confront accusers and no prejudice shown; assignment overruled |
| Right to counsel of choice | State: court permissibly allowed mitigation participation by Bradley without substituting counsel; public defender represented Hanson | Hanson: permitting two attorneys to “cut it down the middle” denied his right to counsel of choice | Court: right to counsel of choice not absolute; trial court acted within discretion; no denial shown |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | State: counsel’s performance was not deficient and Hanson expressed satisfaction; no Strickland prejudice | Hanson: alleged denial of counsel of choice amounted to ineffective assistance | Court: Hanson failed Strickland showing; claim derives solely from rejected counsel-choice argument and is overruled |
| Due process / judicial bias at sentencing | State: sentencing based on facts, victim impact, defendant history and lawful considerations | Hanson: court biased, had predetermined not to impose minimum; used leading questioning of victim; criticized sentence as excessive | Court: no plain error or bias; judge considered proper factors and record supports sentence; claim overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (constitutional rights waived by a plea include privilege against self-incrimination, jury trial, and confrontation)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (strict Crim.R. 11 compliance required for constitutional rights)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (Ohio 1977) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 requirements)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (U.S. 2006) (right to counsel of choice is fundamental but not absolute)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1988) (trial court has discretion in substitution-of-counsel decisions)
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio 2000) (failure to prove either Strickland prong is fatal)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2002) (plain error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))