State v. Wrasman
2019 Ohio 5299
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On Feb. 8, 2019, Benjamin R. Wrasman (intoxicated) entered another guest’s room at a Bellefontaine Super 8 and struck the victim; the victim’s toddler grandson witnessed the incident.
- Wrasman was indicted for one count of aggravated burglary (first-degree felony).
- On May 31, 2019, Wrasman entered a guilty plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford; the court accepted the plea and ordered a PSI.
- The trial court sentenced Wrasman to 9 years’ imprisonment (within the 3–11 year statutory range).
- Wrasman appealed, raising two claims: (1) the trial court disregarded the victim-impact statement when imposing sentence; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to emphasize the victim’s alleged request for mercy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court disregarded the victim-impact statement and imposed a sentence unsupported by the record | State: sentence is within statutory range and the court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors, including victim input | Wrasman: court ignored victim-impact statement and imposed an excessive/unsupported prison term | Court: affirmed — sentence is within statutory range and the record shows the court considered required sentencing factors; not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to highlight the victim’s oral statement as a request for mercy | State: counsel’s conduct was not deficient and no prejudice shown | Wrasman: counsel should have characterized the victim’s oral statement as a plea for mercy (non-prison sentence); failure was deficient and prejudicial | Court: affirmed — counsel’s decision not to emphasize the victim’s remarks was not deficient trial strategy, and Wrasman failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome (no prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (guilty plea may be entered while protesting innocence when defendant concludes conviction is in best interest)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (prejudice standard under Strickland applied in Ohio)
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)