STATE OF OHIO v. MARQUEZ B. PERRY
C.A. No. 25271
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
May 11, 2011
[Cite as State v. Perry, 2011-Ohio-2242.]
CARR, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE Nо. CR 08 01 0067(A)
Dated: May 11, 2011
CARR, Judge.
{1} Appellant, Marquez Perry, appeals his conviction out of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
I.
{2} On January 18, 2008, Perry was indicted on two counts of murder in violation of
{4} On June 19, 2008, Perry was indicted on three additional counts: two counts of aggravated murder in violation of
{5} On August 1, 2008, defense counsel filed a motion to compel the State to produce certain evidence and complete testing on others. On August 14, 2008, defense counsel filed a motion to continue the trial to allow time for gun shot residue testing on certain evidence.
{6} Perry sent a pro se motion for waiver of counsel to the trial court. The trial court addressed the motion at a hearing on August 18, 2008, and the motion was filed on August 19, 2008. Although Perry‘s pro se motion is not docketed on the transcript of docket and journal entries, it bears a time-stamp from the Summit County Clerk of Courts and a copy of the motion is contained in the record on appeal. On August 25, 2008, the trial court denied Perry‘s pro se motion.
{7} On October 3, 2008, the State amended the charge of having weapons while under disability to reflect a charge pursuant to
{8} The matter proceeded to trial. The jury found Perry guilty of two counts of aggravated murder along with the companion firearm specifications, two counts оf murder along
{9} Perry filed a timely appeal. By journal entry, this Court vacated Perry‘s sentence and remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing according to law. State v. Perry (Sep. 3, 2009), 9th Dist. No. 24527. The trial court resentenced Perry on January 26, 2010. Perry has filed a timely aрpeal in which he raises three assignments of error. This Court rearranges some assignments of error to facilitate review.
II.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
“THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PER SE REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF AT TRIAL.”
{10} Perry argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to waive his right to counsel and represent himself pro se. This Court disagrees.
{11} More than thirty-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court held that, implicit in the structure of the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to self-representation. Faretta v. California (1975), 422 U.S. 806, 819. The following year, the Ohio Supreme Court acknowledged that a criminal defendant may elect to defend himself without counsel after knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waiving his right to counsel. State v. Gibson (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 366, 377-78. Significantly, however, the right to self-
{12} When a criminal defendant has properly invoked his right to self-representation, a triаl court‘s denial of that right constitutes per se reversible error. State v. Vrabel, 99 Ohio St.3d 184, 2003-Ohio-3193, at ¶49, citing State v. Reed (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 534, 535, citing McKaskle v. Wiggins (1984), 465 U.S. 168, 177. Perry argues that a criminal defendant properly invokes his right to self-representation “simply” where he has “timely” invoked the right. The Ohio Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly held that a criminal defendant waives the right to self-representation if he fails to assert it in both a timely and unequivocal manner. State v. Cassano, 96 Ohio St.3d 94, 2002-Ohio-3751, at ¶38; State v. Dean, 127 Ohio St.3d 140, 2010-Ohio-5070, at ¶67. This Court concludes that Perry failed to unequivocally invoke his right to self-representation.
{14} The better practice may be for the trial court in all cases to make sufficient inquiry to ensure that the criminal defendant understands the “seriousness of the trial and the possible results it could have for his liberty and life” when considering a motion to proceed pro se. See Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d at 377. In the absence of sufficient inquiry, the trial court cannot properly determine that the defendant has knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to
{15} Perry‘s invocation of his right to self-representation was not clear and unequivocal. He declined to pursue the matter despite the trial court‘s willingness to entertain his questions. His failure to attempt to dispel the concerns raised by the trial court amounted to his acquiescence and tacit abandonment of his motion. He never raisеd the issue again during the next seven weeks prior to the commencement of trial or during trial.
{16} Moreover, the basis for his motion to waive counsel centered on his concerns about only one of his appointed attorneys. Perry never voiced any concern for his other attorney‘s abilities or integrity either in writing or orally at the hearing. The Ohio Supreme Court has held: “In Ohio, a criminal defendant hаs the right to representation by counsel or to proceed pro se with the assistance of standby counsel. However, these two rights are independent of each other and may not be asserted simultaneously.” State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385, 2004-Ohio-5471, paragraph one of the syllabus. Perry did not seek the removal of his second attorney. He failed to address any deficiencies of his other attorney in support of his motion to waive counsel. In effect, Perry sought the right to self-representation while maintaining the assistance of his remaining attorney. On the authority of Martin, he was not entitled to such hybrid representation. “[R]equiring a defendant to clearly and unequivocally waive counsel and elect self-representation, ‘prevents a defendant from taking advantage of and manipulating the mutual exclusivity of the rights to cоunsel and self-representation.‘” State v. Haines, 10th Dist. No. 05AP-55, 2005-Ohio-5707, at ¶26, quoting United States v. Frazier-El (C.A.4, 2000), 204 F.3d 553, 559. Because Perry did not clearly and unequivocally assert his right to self-representation, he did not properly invoke the right. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by denying his pro se motion to waive counsel. Perry‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
“THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT WHEN IT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON SELF DEFENSE WHERE THE TESTIMONY AT TRIAL WARRANTED SUCH AN INSTRUCTION, AND DEFENSE COUNSEL FAILED TO REQUEST SUCH AN INSTRUCTION.”
{17} Perry argues that the trial court committed plain error when it failed to instruct the jury on self-defense. This Court disagrees.
{18} Perry did not present sеlf-defense as the theory of his defense in his opening statement. He did not argue self-defense in his closing argument. The State noted in its closing argument that Perry was not raising self-defense.
{19} The trial court did not instruct the jury on self-defense. It did instruct the jury that to act purposely, as required to establish aggravated murder and murder, means to act “intentionally and not accidentally.” The trial court instructed the jury on the “transfеr of purpose” doctrine in relation to one of the charges of aggravated murder, explaining that one is responsible for the natural and foreseeable consequences of his actions. In addition, the trial court instructed the jury as to complicity, addressing a “common purpose to commit a crime.”
{20} Perry failed to object to the jury instructions.
{21} A criminal defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of self-defense by a preponderance of the evidenсe. State v. Martin (1986), 21 Ohio St.3d 91, syllabus;
{22} A trial court need not instruct the jury on self-defense unless the defendant has successfully raised the affirmative defense by introducing “sufficient evidence, which, if believed, would rаise a question in the minds of reasonable men concerning the existence of such issue.” State v. Melchior (1978), 56 Ohio St.2d 15, paragraph one of the syllabus. The Ohio Supreme Court has held:
“To establish self-defense, the following elements must be shown: (1) the slayer was not at fault in creating the situation giving rise to the affray; (2) the slayer has a bona fide belief that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that his only means of escape from such danger was in the use of such force; and (3) the slayer must not have violated any duty to retreat or avoid the danger.” State v. Robbins (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 74, paragraph two of the syllabus.
The defendant‘s failure to prove any of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence negates his assertion of self-defense. State v. Williford (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 247, 249.
{24} In this case, Tammy Dickey and Scott Smith were killed after being shot multiple times during an arranged drug deal in Ms. Dickey‘s car. Ms. Dickey, Perry‘s girlfriend, arranged the drug deal on his behalf. As Ms. Dickey sat in the driver‘s seat, Mr. Smith entered the vehicle‘s rear passenger sеat. Perry sat in the front passenger seat, while his friend, identified only as “Brian,” sat behind Ms. Dickey. Mr. Smith brought a large quantity of marijuana for sale, while Perry was to have brought $1200. During the transaction, guns were drawn and shots were fired. Ms. Dickey was shot twice, once through her jugular vein, causing her immediate death. Mr. Smith was shot five times. He died shortly thereafter, after an unsuccessful surgery to repair the damage.
{25} Several witnesses in the аrea testified that they heard gunshots and observed Perry shortly thereafter outside the vehicle “fidgeting” with a hand gun. Perry fled the scene and drove to a nearby Circle K store parking lot where he called 911. The police followed two sets of footprints in the fresh snow to a fence. They recovered two hand guns in the snow on the other
{26} Perry testified in his own defense at trial. He admitted that he was involved in the drug transaction in Ms. Dickey‘s car. He testified that Mr. Smith showed the marijuana he brought for sale but then reached to his side, pulled out a gun, and pointed it at Pеrry. Perry testified that he and Mr. Smith began “wrestling” and that the “gun started going off.” He testified that “Brian” pulled out a gun that he and Perry “shared” and that “Brian” shot Mr. Smith. Perry testified that, after “Brian” started shooting, Mr. Smith exclaimed, “Ow, I‘m shot.” He testified that he heard three or four shots from “Brian‘s” gun. Perry further denied shooting Ms. Dickey.
{27} Perry claimed not to have shot either victim. The State, however, presented circumstantial evidence that he did as well as evidence of a common criminal purpose between Perry and “Brian.” While testifying about his struggle with Mr. Smith over a gun, Perry was careful to assert that the “gun started going off” rather than asserting that a specific person began firing the gun. Rather than taking responsibility for firing the gun, Perry‘s testimony indicated that the discharge of the gun was accidental. Such evidence does not merit a self-defense instruction and, in fact, precludes it. Moreover, Perry never testified or presented any evidence that he was in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. On the contrary, he testified that he wrestled with Mr. Smith in an effort to “keep the gun away from [Smith].” Such testimony tends to prove that Perry was attempting to keep Mr. Smith safe from any shots accidentally fired from the gun. Because Perry presented no evidence that he intеntionally fired the gun to protect himself from imminent death or great bodily harm, and he instead presented
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
“APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.”
{28} Perry argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to request an instruction on self-defense. This Court disagrees.
{29} To establish the existence of the ineffective assistance of counsel, Perry must satisfy a two-prong test:
“First, the defendant must show that counsel‘s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that сounsel‘s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable.” Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687.
Perry bears the burden of proving that counsel‘s assistance was ineffective. State v. Hoehn, 9th Dist. No. 03CA0076-M, 2004-Ohio-1419, at ¶44, citing State v. Colon, 9th Dist. No. 20949, 2002-Ohio-3985, at ¶¶49; State v. Smith (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 98, 100.
{30} The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that a court need not analyze both prongs of the Strickland test, where the issue may be disposed upon consideration of one of the factors. State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 143. Specifically,
“Although we have discussed the performance component of an ineffectiveness claim prior to the prejudice component, there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing in one. In particular, a court need not detеrmine whether counsel‘s performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies. The object of an ineffectiveness claim is not to grade counsel‘s performance. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we
expect will oftеn be so, that course should be followed. Courts should strive to ensure that ineffectiveness claims not become so burdensome to defense counsel that the entire criminal justice system suffers as a result.” Id., quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.
{31} This Court has already determined that a self-defense instruction was not warranted based on the evidence adduced at trial. Perry testified in his own defense and had the opportunity to testify that he acted in self-defense. Instead, he did not testify that he shot Mr. Smith out of fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. In fact, he denied that he shot Mr. Smith at all, testifying instead that “Brian” shot Mr. Smith. Moreover, Perry implied that the gun he handled accidentally “started going off.” Accordingly, Perry‘s own testimony gave rise to the reasonable inference that Ms. Dickey‘s death was accidental. Because a self-defense instruction was not warranted, in large part due to Perry‘s own testimony, defense counsel‘s performance was not deficient when he failed to request a self-defense instruction. Perry‘s second assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{32} Perry‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
DONNA J. CARR
FOR THE COURT
DICKINSON, P. J.
BELFANCE, J.
CONCUR
APPEARANCES:
NICHOLAS SWYRYDENKO, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.