STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAMES PAYNE, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL NO. C-180001
TRIAL NO. B-1705743
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
March 13, 2019
2019-Ohio-848
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 13, 2019
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Rubenstein & Thurman, L.P.A., and Scott A. Rubenstein, for Defendant-Appellant.
MYERS, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant James Payne appeals his conviction for domestic violence. In three assignments of error, Payne challenges the validity of his guilty plea, the effectiveness of his trial counsel, and the sentence imposed. Finding no merit to Payne‘s assignments of error, we affirm.
{¶2} Payne was indicted for domestic violence in violation of
{¶3} In his first assignment of error, Payne argues that the trial court erred in accepting a guilty plea that was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. He specifically contends that his plea was invalid because he had not anticipated imposition of the maximum sentence for his offense.
{¶4}
{¶5} In this case, the trial court engaged in a thorough colloquy with Payne and complied with the requirements of
{¶6} Prior to the trial court accepting his plea, Payne confirmed to the court that he could read and write, that he had read the plea form and discussed it with his counsel, that he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and that he had not been forced or threatened in any way to accept the plea. Following our review of the record, we hold that Payne‘s guilty plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶7} In his second assignment of error, Payne argues that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel.
{¶8} Counsel will not be considered ineffective unless her or his performance was deficient and caused actual prejudice to the defendant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 141-142, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989). Counsel‘s performance will only be deemed deficient if it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland at 688; Bradley at 142. A defendant is only prejudiced by counsel‘s performance if there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different but for the deficient performance. Strickland at 694; Bradley at 142.
{¶9} Payne alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a court-clinic evaluation on him prior to sentencing. He contends that the evaluation would have made the court aware of his extensive mental-health issues and would have served as mitigation at sentencing. Payne concedes that his allegations of ineffectiveness are based on matters outside the record. Consequently, they should be reviewed through the postconviction remedies in
{¶10} In his third assignment of error, Payne argues that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence that was not supported by the findings in the record.
{¶11} Pursuant to
{¶12} Payne contends that the trial court failed to consider
{¶13} Here, the sentence imposed by the trial court fell within the available sentencing range for a felony of the fourth degree and was not contrary to law. And the trial court was not required to make any mandatory findings prior to imposing a maximum sentence. Giuggio at ¶ 14.
{¶14} At sentencing, the trial court heard from the victim, Payne‘s mother, and Payne himself. The court additionally discussed Payne‘s lengthy and violent criminal record. Following our review of the record, we find that the trial court did not err in the imposition of sentence.
{¶15} Payne‘s third assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CROUSE and WINKLER, JJ., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.