State v. Champada
Court of Appeals No. F-14-006
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FULTON COUNTY
Decided: October 7, 2016
2016-Ohio-7291
YARBROUGH, J.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
FULTON COUNTY
State of Ohio
Appellee
v.
Pacio P. Champada
Appellant
Court of Appeals No. F-14-006
Trial Court No. 14CR29
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Decided: October 7, 2016
* * * * *
Scott A. Haselman, Fulton County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Spiros P. Cocoves, for appellant.
* * * * *
YARBROUGH, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Pacio Champada, appeals the judgment of the Fulton County
Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to 47 months in prison following a jury trial in
which he was found guilty of one count of burglary, one count of grand theft, one count
of theft, and one count of having weapons while under disability.
{¶ 2} The relevant facts in this case were established at trial as follows:
{¶ 3} On the night of November 10, 2013, a Fulton County deputy, Amos Boysel,
was dispatched to a home in Delta, Fulton County, Ohio, to respond to a reported
burglary. Upon arrival, Boysel discussed the burglary with the owner of the residence,
Clark Brown. Brown had just returned to his home from a vacation in Tennessee.
According to his trial testimony, Brown locked up the house and turned off the lights
prior to departing on vacation.
{¶ 4} As Boysel continued his investigation, he noticed that the home was in
disarray and the door jamb surrounding the front door was broken. Upon further inquiry,
Boysel determined that several items were missing from the home, including a television,
gift cards, money, and Brown’s gun cabinet, which contained five firearms, two hunting
knives, and several boxes of ammunition. According to Brown’s testimony, the gun
cabinet and its contents were worth several hundred dollars, excluding the value of the
firearms.
{¶ 5} Boysel proceeded to gather evidence including “a latent fingerprint from a
sound bar which sat in front of the television that disappeared from the residence,” along
with some money envelopes, the coaxial cable that was unscrewed from the back of the
television by the perpetrators, and a blood sample from a drop of blood that was left on
the front door. The blood and fingerprint were sent to the Bureau of Criminal
not human blood and the fingerprint was inconclusive.
{¶ 6} The ensuing investigation ultimately led officers to interview several
individuals, including Jacob Baker and appellant’s girlfriend, Danielle Figy. Baker, who
described himself as appellant’s “acquaintance,” testified at trial pursuant to a plea
agreement. Baker first met appellant while he was in high school. He was introduced to
appellant through a classmate, who is presently the mother of appellant’s child.
{¶ 7} Regarding his whereabouts on the night of June 8, 2013, Baker admitted that
he was involved in the burglary of Brown’s residence. He explained that he was
motivated to commit the burglary by the need to gather money to support his heroin
addiction. On the night of the burglary, appellant and Figy met Baker at an Econo Lodge
located in Toledo, where Baker was living at the time. According to Baker, the following
exchange took place while the three individuals were conversing at the hotel:
I believe that I was there with [appellant] and [appellant’s
girlfriend,] Danielle and [appellant] had said to me, you know, let’s – let’s
go hit a – let’s make some money, pretty much. And we had went into
Delta. He had a house that he had spotted out that he thought that we were
going to hit. It was over on Providence Street in Delta. We had went there
and we had scoped it out, and we realized that we weren’t going to be able
to do it, so we decided we were going to go look for another place. We had
went out north of town, and that’s when we had came about on County
Road 8-1. When we had went out on County Road 8-1, we had seen a
house and all the lights were off. So we mutually agreed that we were
going to see if could get into this house, to see if anybody was there. And
we were going to get into it if no one was there.
{¶ 8} Danielle was the driver of a white Chevrolet Lumina that the group used to
travel from the hotel to Brown’s residence in Delta on the night of the burglary. As they
approached the residence, Danielle dropped off appellant and Baker, and proceeded to a
local saloon where she waited for them to complete the burglary.
{¶ 9} Upon arrival at Brown’s residence, Baker and appellant walked around the
perimeter to ensure nobody was present inside the home. At some point during this
process, appellant decided to force his way through the locked front door using his
shoulder. According to Baker’s testimony, appellant made his way into the basement,
where he located the gun safe. Initially, appellant attempted to pry open the safe.
However, appellant and Baker eventually decided it would be more practical to steal the
safe itself.
{¶ 10} Once finished scanning the home for any additional items of value, the
record indicates that appellant and Baker removed the gun safe, along with a television,
electric guitar, gift cards, cash, coins, a BB gun, and an electric blanket. Baker proceeded
to call Danielle to have her return to the home. Upon Danielle’s arrival, appellant and
Baker loaded the items into the vehicle and the group returned to the Econo Lodge, where
they unloaded the vehicle. The television and two of the five firearms that were stored in
firearms, appellant, Baker, Danielle, appellant’s brother, and another friend, Jerry St.
Clair, were driving through Toledo when a police officer checked the vehicle’s license
plates and determined that Danielle had a warrant out for her arrest. The officer pursued
the vehicle, prompting the group to flee down a number of side streets. Somewhere
along the way, St. Clair and Baker exited the vehicle. While the vehicle was stopped, the
remaining firearms were disposed of in a nearby dumpster.
{¶ 11} Eventually, police caught the fleeing individuals and they were arrested.
Thereafter, St. Clair and another individual, Chris Merrill, located the dumpster in which
the firearms were disposed, retrieved the firearms, and took them back to Merrill’s house.
Upon her release from jail, Danielle met up with Merrill and the two of them sold the
remaining firearms to an acquaintance, Chas Mull.
{¶ 12} After questioning several individuals including Baker, St. Clair, Figy, and
Mull, officers were able to ascertain appellant’s involvement in the burglary.
Consequently, on March 17, 2014, appellant was indicted on one count of burglary in
violation of
violation of
violation of
weapons while under disability in violation of
degree.
a jury trial ensued. Following trial, the jury found appellant guilty of all charges, and the
matter was continued for sentencing. On August 7, 2014, appellant’s sentencing hearing
was held, at which the trial court sentenced him to a prison term of 11 months for the
theft count and 12 months for each of the remaining counts, to be served consecutively
for a total term of 47 months.
{¶ 14} Appellant was appointed counsel to pursue his appeal. Based upon his
belief that no prejudicial error occurred below, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a
motion to withdraw and a no-error brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
{¶ 15} This court concluded that arguable issues for appeal exist in this case, and
appointed counsel to pursue the appeal on appellant’s behalf. We directed new counsel
to prepare an appropriate appellate brief. State v. Champada, 6th Dist. Fulton No.
F-14-006, 2015-Ohio-2801 (July 10, 2015).
B. Assignments of Error
{¶ 16} Appellant has raised the following assignments of error for our review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. ONE
The trial court committed plain error to the prejudice of Mr.
Champada by imposing multiple sentences for allied offenses of similar
import in violation of his right to due process and his right to counsel as
States Constitution and the applicable portions of the Ohio Constitution.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. TWO
Trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel to the
prejudice of Mr. Champada by failing to object to the imposition of
multiple sentences for allied offenses of similar import in violation of his
right to due process, his right to counsel and to a fair and reliable trial as
guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and the applicable portions of the Ohio Constitution.
II. Analysis
{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court
committed plain error by imposing multiple sentences for burglary, grand theft, and theft,
which he argues are allied offenses of similar import. At the outset, we note that
appellant’s conviction for having weapons while under disability is not at issue in this
appeal as it is not argued to be an allied offense of burglary, theft, or grand theft.
{¶ 18} Appellant failed to raise a claim that the three offenses are allied offenses
of similar import before the trial court. It is a well-established rule that an appellate court
will not consider any error which counsel for a party complaining of the trial court’s
judgment could have called but did not call to the trial court’s attention at a time when
such error could have been avoided or corrected by the trial court. Id. Thus, “[a]n error
not raised in the trial court must be plain error in order for an appellate court to reverse.”
omitted), citing State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E. 2 804 (1978). Such a finding
must be made with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to
prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice. Id.
{¶ 19} Appellant cites to State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 2010-Ohio-1,
922 N.E.2d 923, in support of his argument that the trial court committed plain error by
imposing multiple sentences for allied offenses of similar import. In Underwood, there
was an agreement that the offenses to which the defendant entered guilty pleas were
allied offenses of similar import. The trial court accepted the agreement, and sentenced
the defendant on all counts, with time to run concurrently. The Ohio Supreme Court
determined that it was plain error to sentence the defendant on separate counts for allied
offenses of similar import, even though all sentences were run concurrently. Underwood
is distinguishable to the present case because there is no agreement regarding allied
offenses. Ultimately, the crux of the argument is whether or not the offenses were allied
offenses of similar import.
{¶ 20} Concerning allied offenses of similar import,
(A) Where the same conduct by defendant can be construed to
constitute two or more allied offenses of similar import, the indictment or
information may contain counts for all such offenses, but the defendant
may be convicted of only one.
(B) Where the defendant’s conduct constitutes two or more offenses
of dissimilar import, or where his conduct results in two or more offenses
of the same or similar kind committed separately or with a separate animus
as to each, the indictment or information may contain counts for all such
offenses, and the defendant may be convicted of all of them.
{¶ 21} As set forth in State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942
N.E.2d 1061, the test for whether offenses are allied offenses of similar import under
commit one offense and commit the other with the same conduct.” Id. at ¶ 48. Second,
the court must determine “whether the offenses were committed by the same conduct,
i.e., ‘a single act, committed with a single state of mind.’” Id. at ¶ 49, quoting State v. Brown, 119 Ohio St.3d 447, 2008-Ohio-4569, 895 N.E.2d 149, ¶ 50 (Lanzinger, J., dissenting). “If the answer to both questions is yes, then the offenses are allied offenses
of similar import and will be merged.” Id. at ¶ 50.
{¶ 22} Recently, the Supreme Court of Ohio expounded upon its holding in
Johnson, stating:
As a practical matter, when determining whether offenses are allied
offenses of similar import within the meaning of
R.C. 2941.25 , courts mustask three questions when a defendant’s conduct supports multiple offenses:
(1) Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? (2) Were they
committed separately? and (3) Were they committed with separate animus
or motivation? An affirmative answer to any of the above will permit
separate convictions. The conduct, the animus, and the import must all be
considered. State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114, 2015-Ohio-995, 34 N.E.3d
892, ¶ 31.
{¶ 23} In the present case, the record indicates that when appellant and Baker
initially decided to break into Brown’s home, they circled the perimeter to determine
whether anyone was home. When they were convinced the home was empty, appellant
charged the door with his shoulder, broke the door jamb and entered into the home.
When that occurred, appellant and Baker heard a loud noise and ran away, down the
street. At that point, the offense of burglary was complete.1 Baker testified that he began
to have second thoughts, and that appellant convinced him to go back to the house.
Baker complied, and the two went back into the home and subsequently committed the
theft offenses.
{¶ 24} We find that the burglary offense was committed separately from the theft
offenses. In accordance with Ruff, the fact that the offenses were committed separately
offense of similar import with either theft offense.
{¶ 25} Concerning the two theft offenses, we would note that appellant carries the
burden to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the convictions were for allied
offenses of similar import committed with the same conduct and without a separate
animus. State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 22.
Further, the Ohio Supreme Court has admonished courts to notice plain error “with the
utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest
miscarriage of justice.” State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804, paragraph three
of the syllabus.
{¶ 26} Appellant has not met his burden. The record is clear that appellant stole
items valued at over $1,000, and also separately stole firearms, supporting multiple
charges. In accordance with Ruff, the first inquiry this court must make is whether the
theft offense and grand theft offense are of dissimilar import or significance. Two or
more offenses of dissimilar import exist within the meaning of
defendant’s conduct constitutes offenses involving separate victims or if the harm that
results from each offense is separate and identifiable. Ruff at ¶ 26.
{¶ 27} Appellee recites language from the 1974 committee comments to H.B. 511,
regarding the enactment of changes to
makes stealing certain items grand theft, regardless of their value, because they are
particularly subject to organized criminal activity, and because of the high risk that the
in the theft itself.”
appellant illegally sold them to individuals, thereby creating the risk of further harm
envisioned by the committee with the enactment of H.B. 511.
{¶ 28} The theft of a firearm can create separate harm than the theft of other
household items. We agree that the theft of a television or gift cards financially harms
only the victim of the theft as a sole victim. The theft of a firearm, in this circumstance,
created a separate harm, and the court did not plainly error by not considering the two
theft offenses as allied offenses of similar import.
{¶ 29} We find that the court did not commit plain error by separately convicting
and sentencing appellant for burglary, theft, and grand theft.
{¶ 30} Therefore, appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 31} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the imposition of
multiple sentences for allied offenses of similar import. We disagree.
{¶ 32} In order to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must show
defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and a
reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s error, the results of the trial would
have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 687-688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80
L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In Ohio, a properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. State
v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988). “Debatable strategic and tactical
v. Campbell, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-05-1284, 2006-Ohio-4435, ¶ 20, citing State v.
Phillips, 74 Ohio St.3d 72, 85-88, 656 N.E.2d 643 (1995).
{¶ 33} “There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given case.
Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in the same
way.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. The question is whether counsel acted “outside the
wide range of professionally competent assistance.” Id. at 690.
{¶ 34} Based on our analysis of allied offenses in appellant’s first assignment of
error, we cannot say that counsel acted outside the range of professionally competent
assistance. We found that under the circumstances of this case, burglary was not an
allied offense of theft or grand theft. We further found that in this circumstance, the theft
of a firearm created a separate harm from the theft of other household items. Appellant
cannot make a showing that a reasonable probability exists that had it not been for the
errors of trial counsel, that the result would have been different.
{¶ 35} Therefore, appellant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 36} Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Fulton County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs are hereby assessed to appellant in accordance with
Judgment affirmed.
C.A. No. F-14-006
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.
Notes
R.C. 2911.12(A)(3) defines burglary as:
(A) No person, by force, stealth, or deception, shall do any of the
following:
(3) Trespass in an occupied structure or in a separately secured or
separately occupied portion of an occupied structure, with purpose to
commit in the structure or separately secured or separately occupied portion
of the structure any criminal offense.