State v. LawsonState v. Lawson
Robertson, Geiser & Longano, LLC, and Bernadette M. Longano, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated cаlendar.
Per Curiam.
{¶1} In August 2008, following the entry of a guilty plea, defendant-appellant Sylvester Lawson, II, was convicted of rape,1 kidnapping,2 and an accompanying gun specification. The trial court imposed an agreed prison term of six years each for the rape and kidnapping and three years for the firearm specification, and it ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for an aggregate prison term of 15 years. Lawson appealed his conviction, and appellate counsel was appointed. Lawson‘s appellate counsel filed a no-error brief, and this court affirmed Lawson‘s convictiоns and sentences.3 A few months later, Lawson filed an application to reopen his direct appeal under App.R. 26(B), and we granted the application.
{¶2} In the reopened appeal, Lawson brings forth four assignments of error. For the following reasons, we affirm his convictions and sentences.
{¶3} In his first assignment of error, Lawson argues that the trial court erred when it convicted and sentenced him for both rape and kidnapping in violation of
{¶4} Under
{¶6} After a thorough review of the record, we hold in this case thаt the rape and kidnapping offenses were committed with a separate animus. The record demonstrates that Lawson and an accomplice hаd driven up to the victim late at night while she was retrieving a bag from her aunt‘s car. Lawson pointed a gun at her and demanded money. After the victim stated that she did not havе any money, Lawson forced her into the back seat of the car. Lawson also entered the back seat and ordered the victim to disrobe. At gunpoint, Lawsоn forced the victim to perform fellatio while Lawson‘s accomplice drove the car around town. The victim was later abandoned not far from wherе she had been abducted.
{¶8} We note that in our decision granting Lawson‘s application to reopen his appeal, we concluded thаt the rape and kidnapping were allied offenses of similar import because the record could not “be said to demonstrate a spatial or temрoral separation between the two offenses or a separate animus as to each.” But after closely reexamining the record, we have determined that this initial conclusion was wrong.
{¶9} Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶10} In his second assignment of error, Lawson contends that his agreed sentence wаs not “authorized by law” and was thus subject to appellate review under
{¶11} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a sentence is “authorized by law” and is not appeаlable within the meaning of
{¶12} We hold that Lawson‘s aggregate sentence of 15 years’ incarceration was “authorized by law” because it comported with the аppropriate sentencing provisions. Each prison term fell within the appropriate statutory range for the corresponding offense, and Lawson was properly notified of postrelease control.
{¶13} Therefore, the second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶14} In Lawson‘s third and fourth assignments of error, he essentially contends that his guilty pleas werе rendered involuntary when the trial court failed to properly inform him of the possible maximum prison term he was facing, as well as failing to inform him of his right to compel and summon witnesses on his behalf. These assignments of error are not well taken.
{¶15} The record demonstrates that the trial court informed Lawson that he was facing a totаl of 23 years in prison: 10 years for rape, 10 years for kidnapping, and a mandatory three-year prison term for the gun specification. Further, a review of the рlea hearing demonstrates that the trial court informed Lawson that he was giving up his right “to confront witnesses against you” and “to have subpoenaed witnesses to testify in your favor.” Lawson stated on the record that he understood the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty.
{¶16} Because the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C), Lawson cannot demonstratе that his guilty pleas were made involuntarily. Accordingly, the third and fourth assignments of error are overruled.
{¶17} In his final assignment of error, Lawson maintains that his trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to perform a rudimentary investigation of facts provided to him by Lawson, (2) failing to investigate and interview promising witnesses, (3) failing to advise Lawson of his constitutional right to compel witnesses to appear and testify, and (4) encouraging Lawson to plead guilty to allied offenses of similar import. This assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶19} We hold that Lawson‘s trial counsel was not ineffective. Lawson has failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel‘s performance was deficient in view of our holdings that Lawson was properly informed of his right to compel witnesses to appear аnd testify, and that the rape and kidnapping were committed with a separate animus to justify separate sentences. Further, we can find no evidence in the rеcord, nor can Lawson point to any, that demonstrates that his trial counsel failed to investigate the facts or failed to investigate and interview Lawson‘s witnesses. In fact, Lawson‘s trial counsel subpoenaed several witnesses on Lawson‘s behalf.
{¶20} Because Lawson‘s trial counsel‘s performance was not deficient, we overrule the fifth assignment of error.
{¶21} Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CUNNINGHAM, P.J., HILDEBRANDT and HENDON, JJ.
Please Note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this decision.