State v. KingState v. King
Rendered on the 18th day of June, 2010.
MELISSA M. FORD, Atty. Reg. No. 0084215, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
CHRISTOPHER A. DEAL, Atty. Reg. No. 0078510, 120 West Second Street, Suite 400, Dayton, Ohio 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
WILLIAM KING, JR., #518-261, Allen Correctional Institution, P. O. Box 4501, Lima, Ohio 45802
Defendant-Appellant
DONOVAN, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant William King, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of rape of a child under thirteen, in violation of
I
{¶ 2} On May 16, 2005, King was indicted for one count of rape of child under ten, in violation of
{¶ 3} On August 23, 2005, King filed a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, as well as a request for a competency evaluation and sanity evaluation. An entry was filed on November 1, 2005, in which the court found King competent to stand trial after the psychiatric evaluations were performed.
{¶ 4} On January 9, 2006, King entered into a plea agreement wherein he plead guilty to one count of rape of a child under thirteen in violation of
{¶ 5} On October 10, 2008, King filed a motion to withdraw his plea, a motion to appoint counsel, and a motion to inform his power of attorney. In written decision filed on
{¶ 6} It is from this judgment that King now appeals.
II
{¶ 7} Initially, we note that King‘s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, in which he asserted that he could locate no arguable issues for review on appeal. Pursuant to Anders, we granted King sixty days from our order filed on October 5, 2009, in which to file a brief for our review. On December 3, 2009, King filed a pro se brief containing two assignments of error. The State filed its brief in opposition on march 15, 2010. King‘s appeal is now properly before us.
III
{¶ 8} King‘s first assignment of error is as follows:
{¶ 9} “TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO INVESTIGATE THE DEFENDANT‘S MENTAL STATE OF MENTAL RETARDATION, HIS FAMILY HISTORY, CHILDHOOD BEHAVIORS AND ACTIVITIES BEFORE MAKING TRIAL STRATEGIES VIOLATING DEFENDANT‘S FIFTH, SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RIGHTS. COUNSEL FURTHER FAILED TO SUFFICIENTLY PROTECT DEFENDANT‘S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS BY DISPOSING OF THIS CASE THROUGH A PLEA BARGAIN. DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM AND HIS PLEA WAS NOT INTELLIGENTLY NOR VOLUNTARILY MADE.”
{¶ 10} In his first assignment, King contends that his trial counsel‘s performance
{¶ 11} A guilty plea waives the right to allege ineffective assistance of counsel, except to the extent the errors caused the plea to be less than knowing and voluntary. State v. Spates (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 269, 269. 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. Hill v. Lockhart (1985), 474 U.S. 52, 52-53, 106 S.Ct 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203; State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 524; State v. Davis (Aug. 7, 2000), Butler App. No. CA98-06-134.
{¶ 12} An appellate court reviews the record to determine if the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. State v. McQueeney, 148 Ohio App.3d 606, 2002-Ohio-3731, at ¶18. The court must determine if the trial court substantially complied with
{¶ 13}
{¶ 14} In order for a plea to be given knowingly and voluntarily, the trial court must follow the mandates of
{¶ 15} A trial court must strictly comply with
{¶ 16} A defendant who challenges his plea on the basis that it was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made must show a prejudicial effect. State v. Goens, Montgomery App. No. 19585, 2003-Ohio-5402;
{¶ 18} Additionally, King alleges that his trial counsel failed to properly adequately investigate his mental condition and whether or not he understood the nature of the charge against him. Aside from being unsupported by the record, any non-jurisdictional defects raised by King which occurred prior to the voluntary entering of a plea of guilty or no contest are waived by said plea. State v. Randle, Montgomery App. No. 21931, 2007-Ohio-2967. The essential facts upon which King‘s allegations of ineffectiveness are based lie outside this record and thus, the issues are not properly raised in a direct appeal. State v. Allah, Clark App. No. 08 CA 0035, 2008-Ohio-6719, citing State v. Cooperrider (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 226, 448 N.E.2d 452.
{¶ 19} Lastly, the record contains no evidence which suggests that King was somehow unable to comprehend the nature of the crime for which he was charged. Prior to the plea hearing, a complete psychiatric evaluation was performed on King, and he was found competent to stand trial. Thus, there is no evidence in the record which supports King‘s argument that he was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against him because of an alleged mental deficiency.
IV
{¶ 21} King‘s second and final assignment of error is as follows:
{¶ 22} “THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY NOT GRANTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING.”
{¶ 23} In his final assignment of error, King contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding “new evidence being presented that would prove [King‘s] inability to understand the previous [plea] hearings which took place.”
{¶ 24} “In order to prevail on a post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea, a movant must show a manifest injustice that needs to be corrected. (Internal citations omitted). The Ohio Supreme Court has defined a manifest injustice as a clear or openly unjust act. (Internal citations omitted). The standard requires a showing of some extraordinary circumstances. (Internal citations omitted). * * * [T]he good faith, credibility, and weight of a movant‘s assertions in support of a post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea are matters to be resolved by the trial court. (Internal citations omitted).The decision whether to grant a motion to withdraw a plea is committed to the discretion of the trial court. (Internal citation omitted). Moreover, an evidentiary hearing is not required on every post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea. The movant must establish a reasonable likelihood that withdrawal of his plea is necessary to correct a manifest injustice before a trial court must hold a hearing on his motion.” (Internal citation omitted.) State v. Stewart, Greene App. No. 2003-CA-28, 2004-Ohio-3574.
{¶ 26} A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision. It is not enough that the reviewing court, were it deciding the issue de novo, would not have found that reasoning process to be persuasive, perhaps in view of countervailing reasoning processes that would support a contrary result.
{¶ 27} The record simply does not support King‘s new claims that he was unable to understand the proceedings in which he plead guilty to rape of child under thirteen years of age. Thus, King has failed to establish a reasonable likelihood that withdrawal of his guilty plea was necessary to correct a manifest injustice, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to hold a hearing on his motion.
{¶ 28} King‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
V
{¶ 29} In addition to reviewing the assignments raised by King in his pro se brief, we have conducted an independent review of the trial court‘s proceedings and have found no error having arguable merit. Accordingly, King‘s appeal is without merit, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
BROGAN, J., concurs.
GRADY, J., concurring:
{¶ 31} Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are subject to a general requirement that the defendant affirmatively prove prejudice. It is not enough to show that the alleged errors of counsel had some conceivable effect on the outcome of the proceeding. The defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel‘s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 105 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674.
{¶ 32} Defendant‘s contention that he did not understand the nature of the charges against him lacks any specific reference to what understanding Defendant lacked. The contention instead suggests that circumstances of Defendant‘s background, his mental and emotional difficulties, and his level of intelligence, inhibited him from having the necessary understanding. However, Defendant fails to connect any of those circumstances to the guilty pleas he entered, to show that but for counsel‘s failure to investigate them, Defendant would not have entered his guilty pleas. Defendant‘s motion therefore fails to demonstrate any nexus between counsel‘s alleged failures and the prejudicial result that Strickland requires. That omission is not available for correction through an evidentiary hearing.
{¶ 33} We may grant appellate counsel who filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 leave to withdraw, and
Copies mailed to:
Melissa M. Ford
Christopher A. Deal
William King, Jr.
Hon. Connie S. Price