STATE OF OHIO, Aрpellee, - vs - ANTHONY W. WOODY, JR., Appellant.
CASE NO. CA2019-01-001
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO CLINTON COUNTY
2/24/2020
[Cite as State v. Woody, 2020-Ohio-621.]
RINGLAND, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM CLINTON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI 18-500-215
Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, Marley C. Nelson, 250 East Broad Streеt, Suite 1400, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{1} Appellant, Anthony W. Woody, Jr., appeals his conviction in the Clinton County Court of Common Pleas for failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm the conviction.
{2} In May 2018, the mother of appellant contacted a city of Wilmington police officer to request a welfare check on appellant and gave a description of the vehicle she
{3} Both police officers then pursued appellant with their lights and siren activated. At one point during this chase, the initial officer saw appellant again turn around and appear to yell and gesticulate at him. Throughout this incident, appellant failed to stop at multiple stop signs and red traffic lights and nearly collided with cross traffic at one intersection. Furthermore, appellant fled through the city and county streets at nearly twice the posted limit. Appellant led the pursuing officers outside the city limits and through the surrounding area. When appellant turned northbound on State Rt. 380, the sergeant terminated the chase as a safety precaution and put out a bulletin to the surrounding law enforcement agеncies to be on the lookout for the subject vehicle and appellant.
{4} A short while later, sheriff‘s deputies in Greene County responded to two calls for service. One call involved a vehicle abandoned in the lane of travel matching the description of the subject vehicle. The other call involved a suspicious person walking along the side of the road. In response, deputies located the “suspicious” individual and identified him as appellant. The deputies detained appellant and transported him back to the
{5} Based on those events, appellant was indicted on one count of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, a third-degree felony in violation of
{6} Appellant now appeals, raising one assignment of error for reviеw:
{7} ANTHONY W. WOODY, JR., RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BECAUSE HIS ATTORNEY FAILED TO OBJECT TO INADMISSIBLE AND PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED BAD ACTS. SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION; ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 10 AND 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION; 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, 538 N.E.2D 373 (1989);
{8} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not object to several statements madе by the testifying Wilmington police officers regarding appellant‘s mental health and other bad acts in violation of
{9} The accused in a criminal proceeding has the right to effective assistance of counsel under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions.
{10} Appellant has failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel‘s performance was deficient. This court has repeatedly held that trial strategy, even debatablе strategy, is not
{11} At trial, appellant‘s trial counsel рresented a defense of mistaken identity. In support of this defense, counsel presented an alibi witness to testify that appellant was in Xenia, Ohio at the time and day of the offense. Therefоre, the officers’ statements regarding appellant‘s mental health, substance abuse, and suspected involvement in a burglary were used by the defense to show that the officers had impropеrly identified appellant because they operated under confirmation bias that appellant was the vehicle‘s operator based on the initial report from appellаnt‘s mother. After our review of the record, we find that appellant‘s trial counsel performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonable representation beсause the decision not to object was within reasonable trial strategy. Again, it is not ineffective assistance of counsel because the trial strategy was unsuccessful or there was another possible, better strategy available. State v. Davis, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-12-258, 2013-Ohio-3878, ¶ 25. Furthermore, none of the single statements
{12} Finally, appellant has not demonstrated that these statements prejudiсed him. The jury heard both Wilmington police officers testify that they were familiar with appellant and saw his face during the incident. The officers testified that they were confident they correctly identified the operator of the vehicle. Appellant was found, on foot, three to four miles away from the abandoned subject vehicle and had keys to that vehicle on his person. The vehicle, itself, was distinctive because of its color and the word “bubba” spray painted on one side. Furthermore, the jury was instructed not to use evidence of other acts to prove charaсter or that the appellant acted in conformity with that character. Therefore, appellant has not established a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different, but for those claimed errors.
{13} Accordingly, appellant‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{14} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.