STATE OF OHIO v. JACQUELINE MARTINEZ
No. 101474
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
April 2, 2015
[Cite as State v. Martinez, 2015-Ohio-1293.]
Jones, P.J., E.A. Gallagher, J., and McCormack, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-11-555317-A
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 2, 2015
Christina M. Joliat
P.O. Box 391531
Solon, Ohio 44139
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Anthony Thomas Miranda
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Jacqueline Martinez, appeals her conviction for felonious assault. We affirm.
I. Procedural History
{¶2} The record reflects the following facts. On October 6, 2011, Martinez’s sister got into an altercation with a neighbor, Tiffany Taylor, on Taylor’s front porch. Martinez, who lived down the street from Taylor, had purchased a gun a few weeks prior to the incident.
{¶3} At some point during her sister’s altercation with Taylor, Martinez fired three to five shots from her house towards Taylor’s house. Martinez claimed she was firing warning shots. One of the bullets struck an innocent bystander, Wanda Garrison, in the eye as she let her cat out of her house. Garrison lost sight in her right eye and underwent extensive reconstructive surgery.
{¶4} Martinez was arrested and charged with four counts of felonious assault, one count of improperly discharging into a habitation, and three counts of endangering children. The trial court referred Martinez to the court psychiatric clinic for a mental health examination to determine her competency to stand trial. In a report dated January 3, 2012, Dr. Bethany Young-Lundquist concluded that further evaluation was necessary to determine whether Martinez was competent to stand trial and recommended a “20-day inpatient competence to stand trial evaluation” so Martinez could be “observed more fully.”
{¶6} The trial court held a competency hearing in March 2012. The docket indicates that the parties stipulated to the January 3, 2012 report, but does not indicate whether the parties stipulated to the February 21, 2012 report.
{¶7} In April 2012, Martinez pleaded guilty to one count of felonious assault with a three-year firearm specification and the trial court sentenced her to a total of eight years in prison.
{¶8} In 2014, Martinez filed a motion for a delayed appeal, which this court granted. In her appeal, Martinez raises the following assignments of error:
- Jacqueline Martinez’s guilty plea was not knowing, voluntary and intelligent.
- Jacqueline Martinez received ineffective assistance of counsel as counsel did not enter a written NGRI plea on her behalf.
- Jacqueline Martinez was improperly sentenced as the trial court failed to properly consider the purposes and principles of felony sentencing.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶9} In the first assignment of error, Martinez claims that her guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.
{¶10}
{¶11} To ensure that a defendant enters a plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, a trial court must engage in an oral dialogue with the defendant in accordance with
{¶12} A trial court must strictly comply with the requirements that relate to the waiver of constitutional rights under
{¶13} With respect to the nonconstitutional requirements of
{¶14} In the case at bar, our review of the record shows that the trial court adhered to the requirements of
{¶15} On appeal, Martinez argues that she was not competent at the time she entered the guilty plea. To support this claim, she refers to the trial court docket, which states that her attorney stipulated to the January 3, 2012 court psychiatric report at her competency hearing, but does not show that her counsel stipulated to the February 21, 2012 competency report, the only report that found her competent to stand trial. Because
{¶16} This court was not provided with a transcript from the competency hearing held on March 7, 2012. In Ohio, the appellant has the duty to file the transcript or such parts of the transcript that are necessary for evaluating the trial court’s decision.
{¶17} Martinez has provided this court the transcript from the plea and sentencing hearings, but not the transcript from the competency hearing. Although the docket indicates that the parties stipulated to the January 3, 2012 court psychiatric clinic report at the March 7, 2012 competency hearing, Martinez has not provided a transcript from that hearing to indicate whether the parties also stipulated to the February 21, 2012 competency report. Therefore, we presume regularity with the proceedings below. We also note that neither Martinez nor her counsel raised the issue of her competency during her plea hearing. In light of these facts, her argument that she was not competent during
{¶18} After review, we conclude that Martinez’s plea hearing complied with
{¶19} In the second assignment of error, Martinez claims that she was afforded ineffective assistance of counsel because her trial counsel did not enter a not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI“) plea on her behalf.
{¶20} In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Martinez must prove (1) her counsel was deficient in some aspect of representation, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, were it not for counsel’s errors, the outcome would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
{¶21} In Ohio, every properly licensed attorney is presumed to be competent, and therefore, a defendant claiming ineffective assistance of counsel bears the burden of proof. State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98, 100, 477 N.E.2d 1128 (1985).
{¶22} Martinez has not shown deficient performance by counsel. When the results of her first competency evaluation were inconclusive, her trial counsel sought another evaluation. The second evaluation concluded that Martinez was competent to stand trial. While competency to stand trial and sanity at the time of the act are two separate concepts, there is no evidence that Martinez did not know the wrongfulness of her conduct in this case.
{¶23} Additionally, Martinez cannot show prejudice because there is no evidence
{¶24} Therefore, the second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶25} In the third assignment of error, Martinez challenges her eight-year prison sentence, arguing that the trial court sentenced her to an unduly harsh punishment without taking into consideration her mental health issues, her genuine remorse, and that she was not likely to reoffend if she remained compliant with her medication schedule.
{¶26}
{¶27} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law “where the trial court considers the purposes and principles of sentencing under
{¶28}
{¶29} Martinez claims the trial court failed to consider
{¶30} A reviewing court cannot review the sentencing judge’s exercise of its discretion as “[t]he appellate court’s standard for review is not whether the sentencing
{¶31} Having found that Martinez’s sentence is in accordance with law, the third assigned error is overruled.
{¶32} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and
TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR