State v. ArnoldState v. Arnold
OPINION
Rendered on the 24th day of April, 2015.
. . . . . . . . . . .
RYAN A. SAUNDERS, Atty. Reg. No. 0091678, Assistant Clark County Prosecutor, 50 East Columbia Street, Fourth Floor, Springfiеld, Ohio 45502
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
MARK J. BAMBERGER, Atty. Reg. No. 0082053, 140 East Broadway Avenue, Tipp City, Ohio 45371
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
{¶ 2} Between June аnd October 2013, Arnold was indicted in five separate cases by the Clark County Grand Jury for multiple counts of failure to comply with the order or signal of a poliсe officer, receiving stolen property, breaking and entering, and burglary. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State dismissed two of the charges and one of the five cases, being Case No. 2013-CR-653, in exchange for Arnold pleading guilty to the following:
Case No. 2013-CR-396: Failure to comply (F3) –
R.C. 2921.331 Case No. 2013-CR-417A: Breaking and entering (F5) -
R.C. 2911.13 Case No. 2013-CR-521: Failure to comply (F3) -
R.C. 2921.331 Receiving stolen property (F4) -
R.C. 2913.51 Case No. 2013-CR-745B: Receiving stolen property (F4) -
R.C. 2913.51
{¶ 3} Arnold pled guilty to the offenses listed above on December 9 аnd 23, 2013, and January 14, 2014, respectively. Following Arnold‘s pleas, on January 15, 2014, the trial court imposed a 30-month prison term for failure to comply in Case No. 2013-CR-396; a 12-month prison term for breaking and entering in Case No.
{¶ 4} Arnold now appeals from his conviction and sentence, raising two assignments of error for our review.
First Assignment of Error
{¶ 5} Arnold‘s First Assignment of Error is as follows:
THE DEFENDANT [WAS] DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN THE LATTER FAILED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES OR OTHER DEFENSES OR ATTEMPT TO VIGOROUSLY DEFEND HER CLIENT THROUGH INTRODUCTION OF MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS OR EXHIBIT PRESENTATION.
{¶ 6} Under his First Assignment of Error, Arnold alleges that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to: (1) present evidence of exigent cirсumstances; (2) attack the viability of the evidence offered by the State; (3) move to suppress any evidence; (4) file any motions; (5) offer any exhibits; and (6) crоss-examine his girlfriend and adverse witness, Amanda Romine.
{¶ 7} In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendаnt must show both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), paragraph two of the
{¶ 8} “When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269, 272, 595 N.E.2d 351 (1992). Therefore, “[a] guilty plea waives the right to allege ineffective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the errors caused the plea to be less than knowing and voluntary.” State v. Webb, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26198, 2015-Ohio-553, ¶ 15, citing Spates at 269. (Other citation omitted.) “Only if there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel‘s errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but would have insisted on going to trial will the judgment be reversed.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Huddleson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20653, 2005-Ohio-4029, ¶ 9.
{¶ 9} In this case, Arnold concedes that by pleading guilty he can only succeed on an ineffective assistance claim if he can demonstrate that his trial counsel‘s deficient performance rendered his plea less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Nevertheless, Arnold fails to argue that his counsel engaged in any conduct that made his
{¶ 10} As for Arnold‘s claim that his counsel was deficient in failing to file a motion to suppress, we note that “a defendant who pleads guilty generally waives the right to make allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel * * * for failure to move for suppression unless he alleges that the error causеd the plea to be less than knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Jackson, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 13 MA 121, 2014-Ohio-2249, ¶ 17; Huddleson at ¶ 9. Again, Arnold does not claim that his counsel‘s failure to file a motion to suppress cаused his plea to be less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Accordingly, this failure cannot form the basis of his ineffective assistance claim.
{¶ 11} Arnold also implies thаt his guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he was confused by the numerous cases, charges, and plea offers involved. It is well-established that “[i]n order for a plea to be given knowingly and voluntarily, the trial court must follow the mandates of
{¶ 12} In reviewing thе plea colloquies between the trial court and Arnold, there is no indication that Arnold was confused about his various guilty pleas. Moreover, we find that thе trial court strictly complied with the constitutional waiver requirements and substantially complied with the non-constitutional waiver requirements set forth in
{¶ 13} Because Arnold has not demonstrated that his trial counsel provided deficient representation that affected the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary charaсter of his guilty pleas, his ineffective assistance claim must fail. Accordingly, Arnold‘s First Assignment of Error is overruled.
Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 14} Arnold‘s Second Assignment of Error is as follows:
THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED HIS SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO FACE HIS ACCUSER/S [sic].
{¶ 15} Under his Second Assignment of Error, Arnold contends that he was dеnied the right to confront the witnesses against him as guaranteed by the
{¶ 16} Pursuant to
{¶ 17} Arnold‘s Second Assignment of Error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 18} Having overruled both assignments of error raised by Arnold, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
FROELICH, P.J. and FAIN, J., concur.
Ryan A. Saunders
Mark J. Bamberger
Hon. Richard J. O‘Neill