State v. Mayberry
2014 Ohio 4706
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On March 14, 2012, Mayberry ran a red light at high speed, colliding with another vehicle; the other driver (Samuel Lerch) died and the passenger (William Partridge) was severely and permanently injured. Mayberry sustained injuries and was taken to a hospital where blood was drawn and later tested positive for marijuana.
- Mayberry was indicted on two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and two counts of vehicular assault (first-, second-, and third-degree felonies as charged).
- Mayberry moved to suppress the blood-test results, arguing lack of valid consent; the trial court held a suppression hearing, credited the officer’s testimony that Mayberry was awake, coherent, read and signed a written consent form, and denied suppression.
- Mayberry later pleaded no contest to all counts, sought but then withdrew a motion to withdraw the plea after consulting new counsel, and was sentenced to merged terms totaling 19 years imprisonment (11 + 8 years consecutively), lifetime license suspension, and restitution.
- On appeal Mayberry raised three issues: (1) suppression error (no valid consent for blood draw), (2) ineffective assistance of counsel for advising the no-contest plea, and (3) sentencing error (maximum consecutive sentences and Eighth Amendment disproportionality). The court affirmed but remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry adding the trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression: whether blood draw was consensual | State: officer credibly testified Mayberry was awake, coherent, read and signed a written consent form; consent was voluntary | Mayberry: was confused, in/out of consciousness, and did not give valid voluntary consent | Court upheld denial of suppression — trial court credibility findings supported by record; totality shows voluntary, knowing consent |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for advising no-contest plea | State: counsel’s advice was reasonable given strength of evidence and allowed appeal of suppression ruling; tactical choice | Mayberry: counsel should have challenged DUI element (marijuana detection window) to avoid highest-degree counts and max consecutive exposure | Court rejected claim — defendant failed Strickland showing; counsel’s strategy was reasonable and defendant declined to withdraw plea after review |
| Sentencing: consecutive maximum terms and Eighth Amendment challenge | State: trial court made required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and considered sentencing factors; sentence within statutory ranges | Mayberry: consecutive/max sentences disproportionate, record insufficient to support consecutive findings, and cruel and unusual | Court affirmed sentence on the merits; found record supported consecutive findings made at hearing but remanded for nunc pro tunc entry to include those findings in the journal; sentence not cruel and unusual and within statutory ranges |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) (bodily intrusions for evidence are searches requiring warrant or exception)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (voluntariness of consent judged under totality of circumstances)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and those findings must appear in the journal; omissions may be corrected nunc pro tunc)