State v. JohnstonState v. Johnston
STEVEN H. ECKSTEIN, Atty. Reg. No. 0037253, 1208 Bramble Avenue, Washington Court House, Ohio 43160 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
WELBAUM, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Steven A. Johnston, appeals from the judgment of the Miami County Court of Common Pleas overruling his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Facts and Course of Proceedings
{¶ 2} On July 13, 2012, the Miami County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Johnston with one count of rape of а person less than 13 years of age in violation of
{¶ 3} As part of the plea agreement, Jоhnston agreed to plead guilty to the rape offense as charged in the indictment in exchange for the State dismissing the specification that the victim was less than ten years of age. At the plea hearing, Johnston‘s defense counsel also advised the trial court that the parties had agreed to jointly recommend a prison sentence of “ten years.” Plea Hearing Trans., p. 2. Immediately following that statement, the State clarified that the parties had actually agreed to jointly recommend a prison sentence of “ten years to life.” Id. at р. 3. Neither Johnston nor his defense counsel objected to the State‘s clarification.
No promises have been made except as part of this plea agreement which is stated entirely as follows: The State withdraws its specification and jointly recommends a ten-year prison sentence for Mr. Johnston in exchange for his guilty plea to a felony rape charge.
(Emphasis added.) Id. at 2.
{¶ 5} After thе parties notified the trial court of the plea agreement, the trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy. As part of the colloquy, the trial court advised Johnston that because of the specific code section involved with his rape offense, his sentence would be “a minimum of not less than ten years to a maximum of life imprisonment.” Plea Hearing Trans., p. 6. Upon being so advised, Johnston indicated that he understood the prison sentence that would be imposed. Johnston also indicated that he understood all the rights he was waiving by entering a guilty plea. Following the colloquy, the trial court accepted Johnston‘s guilty plea, ordered a presentence investigation report, and scheduled the matter for sentencing. At Johnston‘s sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a prison term of ten years to life in prison, ordered Johnston to pay court costs, and designated him a Tier III sex offender. Neither Johnston nor his defense counsel made any statement regarding the sentence after it was imposed.
{¶ 6} On February 6, 2014, over a year after his conviction, Johnston filed a motion for leave to filе a delayed appeal. This court overruled Johnston‘s motion on February
{¶ 7} On June 19, 2018, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Johnston‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Following this hearing, the trial court issued a written decision overruling Johnston‘s motion. In overruling the motion, the trial court found that Johnston did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea until more than five years after his conviction and did not аttempt to explain the reason for the delay. The trial court also found that the five-year delay was prejudicial to the State given that the testimony of a child-victim was critical evidence. Although the trial court determined that Johnston‘s undue delay was sufficient grounds to overrule the motion, the trial court also considered the merits of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{¶ 8} When considering the merits of Johnston‘s motion, the trial court found that, despite the misinformation provided by his trial counsel and in the plea form, there was overwhelming evidence that Johnston knew the jоint recommendation was for a prison sentence of ten years to life. Specifically, the trial court pointed to the fact that the plea
{¶ 9} Johnston now appeals from the trial court‘s decision overruling his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, raising three assignments of error for review.
First Assignment of Error
{¶ 10} Under his first assignment of error, Johnston argues that his ten-year-to-life prison sentence is void and that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Johnston claims that his sentence is void because the statutory scheme that penalizes the rape offense in question limited the trial court to imposing a maximum sentence of 11 years in prison. Johnston, however, is not only wrong about his sentence, but the alleged sentencing error is beyond the scope of this appeal.
{¶ 11} The record indicates that Johnston‘s appeal is from the trial court‘s
{¶ 12} In addition to being beyond the scope of this appeal, the argument that Johnston‘s sentence is void lacks merit. Johnston contends that pursuant to
{¶ 13} One exception provides that an offender under
{¶ 14} The other exception provides that if an offender under
{¶ 15}
(B)(1) * * * [I]f a person is convicted of or pleads guilty to a violation of division (A)(1)(b) of section 2907.02 of the Revised Code committed on or after January 2, 2007, if division (A) of this section does not apply regarding the person, and if the court does not impose a sentence of life without parole when authorizеd pursuant to division (B) of section 2907.02 of the Revised Code, the court shall impose upon the person an indefinite prison term consisting of one of the following:
(a) Except as otherwise required in division (B)(1)(b) or (c) of this section, a minimum term of ten years and a maximum term of life imprisonment.
(b) If the victim was less than ten years of age, a minimum term of fifteen years and a maximum of life imprisonment.
* * *
(Emphasis added.)
{¶ 16} The foregoing statutory provision provides that, if
{¶ 17} In this case,
Second Assignment of Error
{¶ 19} Under his second assignment of error, Johnston argues that the trial court erred in overruling his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Johnston‘s claim fails for multiple reasons.
{¶ 20} Pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, a trial court may permit a defendant to withdraw a plea after imposition of sentence only to correct a manifest injustice. State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26354, 2015-Ohio-1584, ¶ 16. ” ‘A “manifest injustice” comprehends a fundamental flaw in the path of justice so extraordinary that the defendant could not have sought redress from the resulting prejudice through another form of application reasonably available to him or her.’ ” State v. Brooks, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23385, 2010-Ohio-1682, ¶ 8, quoting State v. Hartzell, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 17499, 1999 WL 957746 (Aug. 20, 1999). Under this standard, a post-sentence motion to withdraw is allowable only in extraordinary cases. State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977).
{¶ 21} We review a trial court‘s ruling on a post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion. Xenia v. Jones, 2d Dist. Greene No. 07-CA-104, 2008-Ohio-4733, ¶ 6. “The lynchpin of abuse-of-discretion review is the determination whether the trial court‘s decision is reasonable.” State v. Chase, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26238, 2015-Ohio-545, ¶ 17, citing AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157, 161, 553 N.E.2d 597 (1990).1 “A decision is
unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.” AAAA Ents. at 161.
{¶ 22} In this appeal, Johnston claims that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea because the trial court failed to advise him at the plea hearing of the correct maximum possible sentence he could receive as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). This argument, however, was not raised by Johnston as part of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea nor was it raised during the evidentiary hearing on the motion. The only issue brought before the trial court was whether Johnston‘s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by misinforming him about the jointly-recommended sentence and whether said misinformation constituted a manifest injustice warranting the withdrawal of his guilty plea. At no point prior to this appeal did Johnston ever contend that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by misinforming him of the maximum possible sentence he could receive. Aсcordingly, Johnston is improperly raising this claim for the first time in this appeal. See State v. Schneider, 2d Dist. Greene No. 95-CA-18, 1995 WL 737910, *1 (Dec. 13, 1995).
{¶ 23} Johnston‘s claim that the trial court misinformed him of the maximum possible sentence is also barred by the doctrine of res judicata because it could have been demonstrated on the record and raised in a direct appeal. State v. Bonilla, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2008 CA 68, 2009-Ohio-4784, ¶ 39 (“where a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel could be resolved based on the record on direct appeal, such a claim must be raised and a subsequent attempt to raise the claim will bе barred by res judicata“).
{¶ 24} However, even if Johnston‘s claim was not barred, the record indicates that
{¶ 25} We further note that the trial court‘s decision to overrule Johnston‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was partially based on his undue delay in filing the motion. “[A]n undue delay between the occurrence of the alleged cause of a withdrawal of a guilty plea and the filing of a Crim.R. 32 motion is a factor adversely affecting the credibility of the movant and militating against the granting of the motion.” State v. Harden, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 22839, 2009-Ohio-3431, ¶ 7, citing Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324. “The more time that passes between the defendant‘s plea and the filing of the motion to withdraw it, the more probable it is that evidence will become stale and that witnesses will be unavailable.” State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490, 2004-Ohio-6894, 820 N.E.2d 355, ¶ 40. “The state has an interest in maintaining the finality of a conviction that has been considered a closed case for a long period of time.” Id. “It is certainly reasonable to require a criminal defendant who seeks to withdraw a plea to do so in a timely fashion rather than delaying for an unreasonable length оf time.” Id.
{¶ 26} Here, Johnston filed his motion to withdraw his guilty plea five years after
{¶ 27} The trial court‘s reasoning for overruling Johnston‘s motion on the merits was also reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. As previously noted, Johnston argued in his motion that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because his trial counsel misinformed him that the jointly-recommended prison sentence was ten years as opposed to ten years to life. The record, however, indicates that the jointly-recommended sentence of ten years to life was correctly stated on the record by the State at the plea hearing and that the trial court properly advised Johnston of the penalties associated with his offense during the plea colloquy. The record also indicates that Johnston never objected when the State advised the trial court that the jointly-recommended sentence was ten years to life or when that term was subsequently imposed at sentencing. Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that any misinformation Johnston received from his trial counsel regarding the jointly-recommended sentence was cured at the time of the plea hearing. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Johnston failed to establish a manifest injustice warranting the withdrawal of his guilty plea.
Third Assignment of Error
{¶ 29} Under his third assignment of error, Johnston argues that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the plea hearing by failing to correct the trial court‘s alleged misstatement about the maximum possible sеntence that Johnston could receive if he pled guilty to the rape charge. Johnston also contends that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him of an available defense—that there was insufficient proof of “sexual conduct” with the victim. These claims also fail for multiple reasons.
{¶ 30} As a preliminary matter, we note that the ineffective assistance claims raised by Johnston were not raised in the motion to withdraw his guilty plea that is the subject of this appeal. Therefore, the ineffective assistance claims at issue are being improperly raised for the first time on appeal. See Schneider, 2d Dist. Greene No. 95-CA-18, 1995 WL 737910, at *1. Johnston‘s claim that his trial counsel failed to correct the trial court‘s alleged misstatement at the plea hearing is also barred by res judicata since it could have been demonstrated on the record and raised in a direct appeal. See Bonilla, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2008 CA 68, 2009-Ohio-4784, at ¶ 39. But, regardless of these deficiencies, both of Johnston‘s ineffective assistance claims also lack merit.
{¶ 31} In order to succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, a defendant must establish: (1) his trial counsel‘s performance was deficient; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced him. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), paragraph two of the syllabus; State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus. The failure to make a showing of either deficient performance or prejudice defeats a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Strickland at 697.
{¶ 32} To establish deficient performance, a defendant must show that his trial counsel‘s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation. Id. at 688; Bradley at 142. In evaluating counsel‘s performance, a reviewing court “must indulge in a strong presumрtion that counsel‘s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” Strickland at 689. “[A] debatable decision concerning trial strategy cannot form the basis of a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Woullard, 158 Ohio App.3d 31, 2004-Ohio-3395, 813 N.E.2d 964, ¶ 37 (2d Dist.), citing Strickland at 689. (Other citation omitted.)
{¶ 33} To establish prejudice, a defendant must show that there is “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel‘s errors, the proceeding‘s result would have been different.” State v. Hale, 119 Ohio St.3d 118, 2008-Ohio-3426, 892 N.E.2d 864, ¶ 204, citing Strickland at 687-688 and Bradley at paragraph two of the syllabus. ” ‘A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.’ ” Bradley at 142, quoting Strickland at 694.
{¶ 34} Johnston initially claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at the plea hearing because counsel failed to correct the trial court‘s alleged misstatement about the maximum possible sentence he could receive if he pled guilty to the rape charge. This claim lacks merit because, as discussed under Johnston‘s second assignment of error, the trial court correctly advised Johnston that it would be statutorily required to impose a sentence of ten years to life in prison if he pled guilty. Therefore,
{¶ 35} Johnston also claims that his trial counsel failed to advise him that he could defend against the rape charge by arguing that there was no proof of “sexual conduct,” which is an essential element of rape. See
{¶ 36} The West Milton Police Department case report, however, indicates that the victim told law enforcement that Johnston licked her vagina. The case report also indicates that Johnston admitted to putting his mouth on the victim‘s vagina, as the report provides as follows:
Sgt. Hendricks then asked [Johnston] if he put his mouth on [the victim‘s] vagina, which he stated he did not. We informed [Johnston] this is the story [the victim] was giving us and told him if he did it, we know it was a mistake. After this, [Johnston] stated, “I did it, I did it, I just real quick.”
[Johnston] stated again “I did it” and it was stupid and he regrets doing it. Johnston further stated he knows it was wrong and doesn‘t know why he did it.
Transcript of Criminal Docket from Miami County Municipal Court - West Milton Police
{¶ 37} It is well established that placing one‘s mouth on a female‘s vagina is sufficient to constitute the act of cunnilingus. State v. Bailey, 78 Ohio App.3d 394, 395, 604 N.E.2d 1366 (1st Dist.1992). Accord State v. Wilson, 2d Dist. Montgomery Nos. 16728, 16752, 1998 WL 639100, *3-4 (Aug. 7, 1998). Cunnilingus is considered “sexual conduct” under
{¶ 38} Under these circumstances, the fact that Johnston‘s trial counsel did not approach Johnston with the defense that he did not engage in “sexual conduct” with the victim did not fall below an objective standard of reasonable representation. Johnston‘s trial counsel was undoubtedly aware of Johnston‘s admission to law enforcement and the victim‘s allegations and likely realized that the victim‘s testimony alone would be sufficient to prove the “sexual conduct” element of rape. We cannot say that Johnston‘s trial counsel performed deficiently by allowing Johnston to plead guilty without informing him of this implausible defense. Instead, Johnston‘s trial counsel negotiated a favorable plea agreement whereby the State agreed to dismiss the specification that the victim was under ten years of age, thus preventing Johnston from receiving a 15-year-to-life prison sentence. See
{¶ 39} Johnston‘s third assignment of error is overruled.
Conclusion
{¶ 40} Having overruled all the assignments of error raised by Johnston, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
TUCKER, J., concurs.
FROELICH, J., concurs:
{¶ 41} Steven Johnston was indicted on one count of rape of a child less than 13 years of age, with a specification that the child was less than 10 years of age at thе time of the offense. Johnston agreed to enter a guilty plea to the charged offense. According to the plea form, in exchange for the plea, the State agreed to (1) withdraw the specification, and (2) “jointly recommend[ ] a ten-year prison sentence for Mr. Johnston.” The plea form indicated that, without the agreed sentence, Johnston faced a potential sentence of “10 years – life.” The form further stated: “I understand the MAXIMUM penalty COULD be: a maximum basic prison term of life prison years/months of which 10 yrs is mandatory, during which I am not eligible for judicial release. * * *” The terms “life prison” and “10 yrs” were handwritten.
{¶ 42} The рlea form unambiguously stated that the State agreed to a joint recommendation of a definite prison sentence of 10 years. Such a definite sentence would be unlawful, since
{¶ 43} When the plea hearing began, defense counsel informed the court that “the joint recommendation would be in exchange for my client‘s guilty plea to the felony one rape charge, uh, the State will remove the specification and the joint agreement of a ten year prison sentenсe, Your Honor.” Defense counsel‘s statement was consistent with the plea form. The prosecutor responded, however, “That is correct, Your Honor, except I believe the sentence will be ten years to life.” The court replied, “That‘ll be correct.”
{¶ 44} The court then conducted a plea colloquy, during which it told Johnston that, “because of the specific code section involved[,] the penalty in this case would be a sentence of not less than ten years to, a minimum of not less than ten years to a maximum of life imprisonment” and a $20,000 finе. The trial court subsequently asked Johnston if he had a chance to “go over” the plea form with his attorney and whether he understood it and voluntarily signed it. Johnston responded “yes” to those questions. The court‘s advisement and questions about the plea form arguably could have led Johnston to understand that his sentence could be, as stated on the plea form, not less than ten years nor more than life in prison, but that a definite sentence was permissible. Specifically, Johnston could have reasonably believed that he could receive a definite sentence of ten years or possibly more than ten years, but still less than the possible maximum sentence of life in prison, which the plea form said “could be” (i.e., not required to be) imposed.
{¶ 45} The court did not address the apparent discrepancy between the jointly-recommended sentence and the statutorily-required indefinite sentence, nor did it
{¶ 46} Although the discrepancy between the jointly-recommended definite sentence, the colloquy‘s and the form‘s wording, and the indefinite sentence imposed is troubling, I agree that Johnston‘s lack of a direct appeal and the substantial delay (with consequential prejudice to the State) in filing a motion to withdraw his plea requires an affirmance.
Copies sent to:
Paul M. Watkins
Steven H. Eckstein
Hon. Jeannine N. Pratt