State v. UleryState v. Ulery
Rendered on the 5th day of February, 2010.
AMY SMITH, Atty. Reg. #0081712, Clark County Prosecutor’s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, 4th Floor, P.O. Box 1608, Springfield, Ohio 45501 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
CHRISTOPHER B. EPLEY, Atty. Reg. #0070981, 124 East Third Street, Suite 300, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
FAIN, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Jeffrey Ulery appeals from his conviction and sentence for Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Murder.
{¶ 2} Ulery was originally indicted upon two counts of Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Murder and one count of Attempted Aggravated Murder. After trial had
{¶ 3} Assigned appellate counsel has examined the record and filed a brief under the authority of Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, wherein counsel represents that he has found no arguably meritorious issues to present on appeal. Ulery was notified that his counsel had filed an Anders brief, and was afforded the opportunity to file his own, pro se brief. He has not done so.
{¶ 4} Ulery’s appellate counsel has suggested two potential issues for review, although concluding that they lack merit:
{¶ 5} “APPELLANT DID NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS PRIOR TO PLEADING GUILTY.
{¶ 6} “APPELLANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FROM HIS TRIAL ATTORNEY.”
{¶ 7} Due process requires the entry of a plea of guilty to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 1996-Ohio-179. In order to guarantee that this requirement has been met, the trial court must engage in an oral dialogue with the defendant in compliance with
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} In reviewing the colloquy between the trial court and Ulery, we find that the court substantially complied with the requirements set forth in
{¶ 10} In order to reverse a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, it must be demonstrated both that trial counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the errors were serious enough to create a reasonable probability that, but for the errors, the result of the trial would have been different. Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 688; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136. Trial counsel is entitled to a strong presumption that his or her conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable assistance. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688. Deficient performance means that claimed errors were so serious that the defense attorney was not functioning as the “counsel” that the Sixth Amendment guarantees. State v. Cook (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 516, 524.
{¶ 12} In accordance with Anders v. Califoria, supra, we have conducted our own, independent review of the record. From that review, we are satisfied that Ulery was properly convicted and sentenced and that he has received appropriate appellate representation. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
GRADY and FROELICH, JJ., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Amy M. Smith
Christopher B. Epley
Jeffrey Ulery
Hon. Thomas C. Nurre