STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. KEVIN D. WHEATLEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
CASE NO. 1-10-75
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY
April 25, 2011
[Cite as State v. Wheatley, 2011-Ohio-1997.]
Aрpeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. CR2010 0253, Judgment Affirmed
Rebecca S. Newman for Appellant
Jana E. Emerick for Appellee
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Kevin D. Wheatley (“Wheatley”), appeals the October 27, 2010 judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Allen County, Ohio, finding him guilty of one count of breaking and entering in violation of
{¶2} The facts relevant to this appeal are as follows. On the weekend of June 5-7, 2009, Church’s United Pantry (“C.U.P.”), located in Lima, Allen County, Ohio, which was closed all weekend, was broken into. The intruders gained entry by breaking a 1’ x 5’ window. Officers were called to the scene, where they discovered broken glass from the window on the outside and inside of the building. Upon further inspection, they found blood on some of the broken glass, the curtains, and on a refrigerator/freezer inside the business. Suzanne Plumb, president of the board of C.U.P., was contacted and came to C.U.P., where she discovered that a large amount of frozen meat had been stolen from the freezer.
{¶3} Officers collected some of the glass fragments that had blood on them, which were later tested for DNA. A fingerprint was also found on a piece of glass at the scene and collected as evidence. Initially, the Lima Police Department had
{¶4} Detective Steve Stechschulte later located Perrine and questioned him about the break-in at C.U.P. Perrine admitted to brеaking into C.U.P. and told Det. Stechschulte that he was with a man named Kevin whom he met at the Mary Alice House. Perrine further described Kevin, and Det. Stechschulte was able to determine, based upon his prior knowledge of Wheatley, that Perrinе was with Wheatley at the time of the break-in.
{¶5} On August 3, 2010, Wheatley was arrested on a warrant that was issued for the breaking and entering of C.U.P. The following day, Det. Stechschulte interviewed Wheatley, who was still in custody. During this interview, Wheatley admitted to being the one who broke the window at C.U.P. and that he told Perrine, who was much thinner, to go through the window and get some food because he could not climb through such a small opening himself. According to Wheatley, Perrine climbed through the window and took sоme food from C.U.P. but that he, personally, never went inside. Wheatley further stated
{¶6} On September 16, 2010, Wheatley and Perrine were jointly indicted on onе count of breaking and entering, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of
{¶7} The trial court immediately proceeded to sentencing. The court noted that Wheatley had an extensive criminal record, including prior felonies. The court also noted that Wheatley had a prior conviction in 2001 for sexual battery, that he had been imprisoned for that offense, and that he was on post-release control for that offense at the time he committed the breaking and entering offense at C.U.P. The trial court then sentenced him to prison for twelve months for breaking and entering and for 747 days for violаting post-release control, which it
THE DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT/APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THEREBY DENYING HIM A FAIR TRIAL.
{¶8} In his assignment of error, Wheatlеy asserts that his trial counsel should have filed a motion to suppress his statement to Det. Stechschulte. Wheatley further contends that if the motion to suppress would have been granted, he would not have been convicted becаuse his statement was the only evidence of his involvement that the State presented. Thus, he maintains that his constitutional right to competent counsel was violated.
{¶9} Initially we note that attorneys licensed by the State of Ohio are рresumed to provide competent representation. State v. Hoffman (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 403, 407, 717 N.E.2d 1149. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires proof that trial counsel’s performance fell below objective standards of reasonable rеpresentation and that the defendant was prejudiced as a result. State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraph two of the syllabus. In reviewing such a claim, courts are to afford a high level of deference to the performance of trial counsеl. Id. at 142, 538 N.E.2d 373. Also, in order to show that a defendant has been prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance, the
{¶10} The United States Supreme Court has held that the “fаilure to file a suppression motion does not constitute per se ineffective assistance of counsel.” Kimmelman v. Morrison (1986), 477 U.S. 365, 384, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305, cited in State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378, 389, 721 N.E.2d 52, 2000-Ohio-448. There must also be a reasonable probability that the motion will be successful. See State v. Robinson (1996), 108 Ohio App.3d 428, 433, 670 N.E.2d 1077; State v. Ligon, 3rd Dist. No. 4-2000-25, 2001-Ohio-2231. Therefore, this Court’s determination of whether counsel for Wheatley was ineffective relies upon whether there was a reasonable probability that a motion to suppress in this case would have been successful.
{¶11} The seminal case of Miranda v. Arizona requires that “[a] suspect in poliсe custody ‘must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.’”
{¶12} Prior to addressing the merits of this assignment of error, we note thаt the record before this Court contains only a portion of the DVD recording of Wheatley’s statement. This portion was shown at the trial, admitted as State’s Exhibit 5, and only contains the portion of Wheatley’s interview with Det. Stechschulte regarding the break-in at C.U.P. Exhibit 5 begins with Det. Stechschulte reading Wheatley his Miranda rights and ends while Wheatley is in the middle of a sentence. Thus, it is obvious that this interview contained more information than is before this Court. In fact, Det. Stechschulte testified that the
{¶13} Neither party disputes that Wheatley was in custody at the time of his interview or that Det. Stechschulte read him the Miranda warnings. Det. Stechschulte asked Wheatley if he understood those rights, Wheatley said that he did, and Det. Stechschulte read the waiver portion of his Miranda rights form, and asked Wheatley if he wanted to talk. Wheatley told the detective that he did not know what the detective wanted him to do, and Det. Steсhschulte told Wheatley that it was his choice and that if he did not feel like talking to the detective he could tell Det. Stechschulte to “pound sand.” Det. Stechschulte, who clearly had prior experiences with Wheatley, told him that if he wanted to talk, all Det. Stechschulte wanted was for Wheatley not to lie to him and further told him that he was not trying to railroad Wheatley and had never done so in the past. Wheatley then proceeded to admit to participating in the break-in at C.U.P.
{¶14} Wheatley, who was forty-one at the time of the interview, did not appear to be of low intelligence, was able to speak coherently, and as noted by the trial court and as evidenced by his criminal recоrd that was filed in discovery, had
{¶15} Although Wheatley contends that the interview shows Det. Stechschulte telling him that he could arrange for Wheatley tо get out of jail if he tells the detective that he was involved in the break-in and that he could have filed additional charges against Wheatley, these statements are taken out of context.
{¶16} In explaining to Wheatley that he is not trying to “railroad” him, Det. Stechschulte references a prior incident where he could have “railroaded” him if he wanted to but that was never his desire. Further, the detective says that there were two additional charges that he could hаve brought against Wheatley if he was trying to “railroad” him but that he did not charge him with those offenses and had no intention of charging him with them now.
{¶17} As to the assertion that Det. Stechschulte told Wheatley that he could get him out of jail if he confessed to breaking and entering, the detective’s statements about Wheatley being released were not mentioned until after Wheatley confessed to breaking the window at C.U.P. and they were not promises. Rather, Wheatley stated that he did not understand why hе was in jail but Perrine was not even though Perrine also confessed. Det. Stechschulte told Wheatley that
{¶18} In light of the totality of the circumstances of the portion of the interview before us, Wheatley’s waiver of his Miranda rights were made voluntarily and knowingly. Thus, there was not a reasonable probability that a motion to suppress would have been successful, and we do not find that Wheatley’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress. Accordingly, the assignment of error is overruled.
{¶19} For these reasons, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Allen County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
ROGERS, P.J., and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
/jlr