State v. Martemus
2019 Ohio 1116
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Rayland Martemus filed an App.R. 26(B) application to reopen his direct appeal of convictions for multiple felonies including aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, robbery, felonious assault, and having weapons while under disability, plus one- and three-year firearm specifications and repeat/prior-conviction specifications.
- The Eighth District had previously affirmed his convictions and sentences in State v. Martemus, 2018-Ohio-3277. Martemus now alleges appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise certain issues.
- At sentencing, the trial court merged various counts for sentencing, imposed mandatory firearm specifications, and ordered the three-year firearm specifications to run consecutive to each other and to underlying terms, resulting in an overall 10-year prison term.
- Martemus’s reopening application advanced three principal claims of appellate ineffectiveness: (1) improper imposition of consecutive firearm specifications under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) and Crim.R. 32(B); (2) defective indictment for lack of detail and mens rea allegations; and (3) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Crim.R. 3.
- The court applied the Strickland/Bradley standard for ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims and reviewed whether Martemus showed deficient performance and prejudice.
- The court denied reopening, holding: consecutive three-year firearm specifications were required by statute and properly imposed; the indictment adequately tracked statutory language and identified predicate statutes; and the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court had subject-matter jurisdiction where the indictment charged felonies in Cuyahoga County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Martemus) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive three-year firearm specifications were improperly imposed | Trial court complied with R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g); multiple three-year specs may be imposed and run consecutively | Appellate counsel should have argued trial court erred in imposing consecutive firearm specifications | Denied reopening — the statute requires/order of consecutive three-year firearm specs; no prejudice shown |
| Whether the indictment was defective for lack of detail or mens rea | indictment that tracks statutory language and lists statute numbers is sufficient notice | Indictment failed to describe offenses with particularity and omitted culpable mental states | Denied reopening — indictment tracked statutory language and identified statutes; not defective |
| Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction | Cuyahoga C.P. has original jurisdiction over felonies and jurisdiction is invoked by indictment | Appellate counsel should have argued Crim.R. 3/subject-matter jurisdiction defect | Denied reopening — indictment charged felonies in Cuyahoga County; common pleas court had jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 688 (1984) (ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice required)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland standard)
- State v. Buehner, 110 Ohio St.3d 403 (2006) (indictment must give adequate notice and protect against double jeopardy)
- State v. Wesson, 137 Ohio St.3d 309 (2013) (an indictment that tracks the statute suffices even if mens rea not expressly stated)
- State v. Horner, 126 Ohio St.3d 466 (2010) (discussion of indictment language and mens rea pleading)
- State v. Sowell, 148 Ohio St.3d 554 (2016) (indictment tracking statutory language provides adequate notice)
- Click v. Eckle, 174 Ohio St. 88 (1961) (common pleas court jurisdiction over felony cases invoked by indictment)