Dеfendant-appellant, Donald W. Smith, was indicted on one count each of aggravated robbery and felonious assault. On September 8, 1992, appellant’s counsel filed a motion for a jury view of the crime scene. Trial by jury commenced six days later on September 14, 1992. When counsel inquired about his motion for a jury view, the court denied the motion because counsel had failed to arrange transportation for the jurors. Following trial, the jury found appellant guilty of the lesser offensеs of robbery and assault and appellant was sentenced of record.
As his sole assignment or error, appellant claims he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon trial counsel’s failure to timely file thе motion for a jury view and to arrange transportation for the jury. To merit reversаl of a conviction on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsеl, a defendant must show that his attorney’s performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense.
Strickland v. Washington
(1984),
Appellant first clаims that counsel was ineffective because he failed to file the motion for a jury view at least seven days before trial as required by Crim.R. 12(C). However, there is nothing in thе record to indicate that the trial court denied appellant’s motion because it was untimely. Under these circumstances, we cannot say that counsеl’s failure to timely file the motion was either professionally unreasonable or had an actual adverse effect on the defense. Strickland, supra.
The trial court’s basis for denying the motion was counsel’s failure to arrange transportation to the сrime scene. The court informed counsel that even though the state may ultimatеly be responsible for the cost of the jury view, it was defense counsel’s responsibility to arrange transportation for the jurors. In order for this conduct to constitutе ineffective assistance of counsel, it must be shown that counsel’s performance was professionally unreasonable.
Strickland, supra,
*180
A trial court has broad discrеtion in deciding whether to grant a jury view, and a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court’s judgment absent an abuse of discretion.
State v. Richey
(1992),
The evidenсe shows that two individuals assaulted and robbed seventy-four-year-old Victor Peyton in the parking lot outside Lee’s Cafe in Middletown, Ohio during the early evening hours of June 20, 1992. Peytоn initially identified his assailants as being two black men, but later said that one was white and оne was black. At trial, Peyton positively identified appellant, a white man, as the principal assailant. Appellant’s sunglasses and address book were reсovered at the crime scene.
Ben Watson, who resided in an apartment building аdjacent to the crime scene, witnessed the assault and robbery from his second-story bathroom window. When questioned by appellant’s counsel on cross-examination, Watson denied that the view from his window was obstructed by another building.
Appellаnt’s primary contention is that a view of the scene would have impeachеd Watson’s credibility. It is readily apparent that appellant sought to attaсk Watson’s credibility through the use of a jury view coupled with the argument that Watson could not have seen that which he said he saw. Such circumstances are not the рroper basis for granting a jury view. See,
e.g., State v. Glenn
(Oct. 26, 1988), Hamilton App. No. C-870721, unreported,
Even if counsel had arranged for jury transportation, it appears that a jury view would not have been proper and there is no guarantee that the court would have granted appellant’s motion. In any event, we cannot say that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proсeeding would have been different. Strickland, supra. We conclude that appellant has failed to demonstrate that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error is hereby overruled.
Judgment affirmed.