Case Information
*1
[Cite as
State v. Martinez
,
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96222
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs.
RAFAEL MARTINEZ
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-534788
BEFORE: Cooney, J., Blackmon, P.J., and Stewart, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 10, 2011 2 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Russell S. Bensing
1350 Standard Building
1370 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
By: Mark J. Mahoney
Assistant County Prosecutor th Floor, Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ALSO LISTED
Rafael Martinez, pro se
Inmate No. 590-149
501 Thompson Road
P.O. Box 8000
Conneaut, Ohio 44030
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J.: Defendant-appellant, Rafael Martinez (“Martinez”), appeals his convictions
for aggravated vehicular assault, vandalism, driving under the influence (“OVI”), and child endangering. Finding no merit to this appeal, we affirm. In March 2010, Martinez was indicted on two counts of aggravated
vehicular assault, one count of vandalism, one count of OVI, and three counts of child endangering. The charges stemmed from an accident that occurred when Martinez operated his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, with his girlfriend and three children in the vehicle. Martinez lost control of the vehicle, crashing into a house and injuring the homeowner. Martinez pled guilty to one count of aggravated vehicular assault, one count of vandalism, one count of OVI, and one count of child endangering. The remaining three charges were nolled by the State. The court ordered a presentence investigation report for the sentencing hearing. The trial court sentenced Martinez to thrеe years in prison for the
aggravated vehicular assault charge, ten months for the vandalism charge, six months on the OVI charge, and six months on the child endangering charge. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Martinez now appеals, raising two assignments of error through counsel,
and three assignments of error pro se.
Felony Sentence
4
{¶ 5}
In his first assignment of error, Martinez argues that his sentence is contrary
to law and an abuse of discretion. He raises this same argument in his pro se brief in the
third assignment of error. These two assignments of error will be addressed together.
We review felony sentences using the
Kalish
framework.
State v. Kalish
,
120 Ohio St.3d 23,
with all аpplicable rules and statutes in imposing the sentence to determine whether the sentence is clearly and convincingly contrary to law.” Id. at ¶4. If this first prong is satisfied, then we review the trial court’s decision under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. аt ¶4, 19. In the first step of our analysis, we review whether the sentence is contrary
to law as required by R.C. 2953.08(G). As the Kalish court noted, post- Foster , “trial courts have full discretion to
impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make
5 findings and give reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive or more than the minimum
sentence.” Id. at ¶11;
Foster
, paragraph seven of the syllabus;
State v. Mathis
, 109 Ohio
St.3d 54,
“[A] court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by the overriding purposеs of felony sentencing[,] * * * to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender. To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.” R.C. 2929.12 provides a nonexhaustive list of factors a trial court must consider when determining the seriousness of thе offense and the likelihood that the offender will commit future offenses. The Kalish court also noted that R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not
fact-finding statutes like R.C. 2929.14. Kalish at ¶17. Rather, they “serve as an overarching guide for trial judges to consider in fashioning an appropriate sentence.” Id. Thus, “[i]n сonsidering these statutes in light of Foster , the trial court has full discretion to determine whether the sentence satisfies the overriding purposes of Ohio’s sentencing structure.” Id. In the instant case, we do not find Martinez’s sentence contrary to law. His
three-year sentence is within the permissible statutory range for aggravated vehicular
assault, a third-degree felony, which carries a maximum penalty of six years in prison.
In the sentencing journal entry, the trial court acknowledged that it had
considered all factors of law and found that prison was consistent with the purposes of
R.C. 2929.11. On these facts, we cannot conclude that the sentence is contrary to law.
Having satisfied the first step, we next consider whether the trial court
abused its discretion.
Kalish
at ¶4, 19. “An abuse of discretion is ‘“more than an error
of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or
unconscionable.”’” Id. at ¶19, quoting
Blakemore v. Blakemore
(1983), 5 Ohio St.3d
217, 219,
“ does not revive Ohio ’ s former consecutive-sentencing statutory provisions, R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.41(A), which were held unconstitutional in Foster . Trial court judges are not obligated to engage in judicial fact-finding prior to imposing consecutive sentences unless the General Assembly enacts new legislation requiring that findings be made. ” Hodge at paragraphs two and threе of the syllabus.
{¶ 16} Martinez argues that his sentence constitutes an abuse of discretion. However, after a thorough review of the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a three-year prison sentence. The court аllowed defense counsel the opportunity to advocate for mitigation of any penalty. The court also allowed Martinez to address the court. The judge spoke of Martinez’s prior convictions and probation violations, inсluding a prior OVI.
{¶ 17} We find nothing in the record to suggest that the trial court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Accordingly, these assignments of error are overruled.
Allocution
In his second assignment of error, Martinez argues that the court viоlated his right to due process by denying him his right to allocution. Crim.R. 32 describes the trial court’s duty when imposing a sentence.
Crim.R. 32(A)(1) provides in pertinent part: “* * * At the time of imposing sentence, the court shall do all of the
following: “Afford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant and
address the defendant personally and ask if he or she wishes to make a statement in his or her own behalf or present any information in mitigation of punishment.” A thorough review of the record illustrates that during thе sentencing hearing, the trial court addressed both defense counsel and Martinez directly, and afforded both a full opportunity to address the court. Defense counsel spoke extensively in favor of mitigation. (Tr. 25-32.) The court then engaged Martinez in a dialogue regarding the incident and his failure to maintain sobriety. Both defense counsel and Martinez were afforded the opportunity to argue for mitigation, although the court never specifically asked about mitigation. Martinez was therefore not denied his right of allocution. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.
Voluntariness of Plea
In his first pro se assignment of error, Martinez argues that the trial court erred in accepting his plea. He argues that the court violated rules governing amendments to indictments and that the indictment failed to advise him of the a material element of the crime with which he was charged. Martinez’s alleged error arises out of the State’s request to amend the
original indictment. Prior to accepting Martinez’s plea, the State asked to amend Count 5, child endangering, in the original indictment to include the name of a second victim, the victim listed in Count 6. Crim.R. 7(D) addresses amendments to criminal indictments, stating:
“the court may at any time before, during, or after a trial amend the indictmеnt, information, complaint, or bill of particulars, in respect to any defect, imperfection, or omission in form or substance, or of any variance with the evidence, provided no change is made in the name or identity of the crime charged.” {¶ 26} Prior to accepting the amendment, the trial court asked defense counsel if he would “waive any defect in the indictment?” Counsel replied “[y]es, your Honor.” Martinez argues that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because hе did not knowingly waive his right to a defective indictment. Martinez has failed to show how the addition of a second victim’s name to Count 5 actually constituted a defect or how it prejudiced him in any way. Having originally been charged with three counts of child endangering (Counts 5, 6, 7), with three separately identified victims, Martinez was fully advised of all material details regarding his charges. Simply adding the name of one victim to one of the other counts, in light of the remaining two child endangering charges being nolled, does not warrant vacating his plea. Moreover, after a recitation of the plea agreement, the trial court directly
addressed Martinez prior to accepting his plea and asked if he understood everything that had been said. Martinеz responded affirmatively, without questioning the waiver or the amendment despite having the opportunity to raise the issue if he had been confused. The record shows that Martinez’s plea was properly taken and that the trial court adhered to all the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C). Counsel’s waiver of any defect in the original indictment did not invalidate Martinez’s plea. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel In his second pro se assignment of error, Martinez arguеs that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. To reverse a conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant
must prove “(1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness, and (2) that counsel’s deficient performance prejudiced the defendant
resulting in an unreliable or fundamentally unfair outcome of the proceeding.”
State v.
Madrigal
,
exists a reasonable probability that, were it not for counsel’s errors, the result of the trial
would have been different.”
State v. Bradley
(1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d
373, paragraph three of the syllabus;
Strickland
at 686. In evaluating whether a
petitioner has been denied effeсtive assistance of counsel, the Ohio Supreme Court held
that the test is “whether the accused, under all the circumstances, had a fair trial and
substantial justice was done.”
State v. Hester
(1976),
challenged action is the product of sound trial strategy and falls within the wide range of
professional assistance.
Strickland
at 689. Courts must generally refrain from
second-guessing trial counsel’s strategy, even where that strategy is questionable, and
appellate counsel claims that a different strategy would have been more effective.
State
v. Jalowiec
,
attorney waived any defeсt in the indictment. Having found that no error occurred in waiving any “defect” in the original indictment, we therefore find no merit to this argument. Martinez also argues that the original indictment constituted double
jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause рrecludes successive
prosecutions and successive punishments for the same criminal offense.
United States v.
Dixon
(1993),
assault under two different statutes, R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a) and 2903.08(A)(2)(b). Thus, two separate charges with different elements in regard to the same act do not constitute double jeopardy. Accordingly, this assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appеllee recover of 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. The defendant’s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________________________________
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., CONCURS;
MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY
Notes
[1] We recognize Kalish is merely persuasive and not necessarily controlling because it has no majority. The Supreme Court split over whether we review sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard in some instances.
[2] In State v. Hodge ,