STATE OF OHIO v. WESLEY WRIGHT
No. 98345
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
March 14, 2013
[Cite as State v. Wright, 2013-Ohio-936.]
BEFORE: Blackmon, J., S. Gallagher, P.J., and E.A. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION; RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 14, 2013
Case No. CR-498291
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Michael H. Murphy
20325 Center Ridge Road
Suite 512
Rocky River, Ohio 44116
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
Kristen L. Sobieski
Katherine Mullen
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
{1} Appellant Wesley Wright appeals his conviction and assigns the following errors for our review:
I. Appellant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel.
II. The charge of gross sexual imposition was errant upon its face due to the incorrect dates being noted within the amеnded charge.
{2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm Wright‘s conviction. The apposite facts follow.
{3} On July 9, 2007, the Cuyahoga County Grаnd Jury indicted Wright on four counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and one count of rape. The trial court issued a capias for Wright, who was evеntually arrested on March 25, 2008. The following day, Wright pleaded not guilty at his arraignment, was declared indigent, and counsel was appointed for his defense.
{4} On February 9, 2009, after numerous pretrials had been conducted, and after two successive appointed counsel had filed motions to withdrаw as counsel, a jury trial commenced. On February 13, 2009, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts of the indictment. On March 6, 2009, the trial court imposed a 25-year prison term, and Wright appealed.
{6} On April 24, 2012, following our remand and the Ohio Supremе Court‘s declining review, Wright and the state reached a plea agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the state would amend the rape charge and Wright would plead guilty to gross sexual imposition, a fourth-degree felony. Wright entered the guilty plea to the amended charge, and the triаl court imposed an 18-month sentence. The trial court order Wright released, because he had already served three years in prison.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
{7} In thе first assigned error, Wright argues he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, because defense counsel‘s performancе was deficient at the plea and sentencing hearing.
{8} To establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, Wright must show that his counsel‘s performance was deficient and that deficiency prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1011,
{9} Preliminarily, we note, in the instаnt case, on remand to the trial court, Wright faced a single count of rape, in violation of
{10} However, the defense counsel, who Wright now alleges was ineffective, negotiated a plea to an amended charge of gross sexual imposition, a fourth-degree felony with a maximum exposure of 18 months. By any standard, a defense counsel that reduces a defendant‘s exposure from life imprisonment to a maximum of 18 months in prison, could not bе considered ineffective.
{11} Further, it is well established that a guilty plea waives the defendant‘s right to claim he was prejudiced by the ineffective аssistance of counsel, except to the extent that the defects complained of caused the plea to be less than knowing аnd voluntary. State v. King, 184 Ohio App.3d 226, 2009-Ohio-4551, 920 N.E.2d 399, ¶ 47 (8th Dist.).
{12} Thus, to prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with a guilty plea, appellant must demonstratе that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel‘s errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. State v. Minite, 8th Dist. No. 95699, 2011-Ohio-3585, citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985).
{14} Further, after Wright рleaded guilty and prior to being sentenced, the following exchange took place:
The Court: What do you want to say on your own behalf, Mr. Wright?
The Defendant: That I understand what‘s going on and that I am apologizing for my actions. Tr. 18.
{15} Here, Wright had provided no specific examples of defensе counsel‘s deficient performance and has failed to demonstrate that, but for defense counsel‘s alleged errors, he would not have pled guilty to the amended charge. Thus, we find that he was not denied the effective assistance of counsel.
{16} Moreover, we are not as confident as Wright in his postconviction assertion that he would have been acquitted of the rape charges had he gone to trial. In our dеcision on Wright‘s prior appeal, we stated:
* * * [I]t would have been possible to prove that Wright committed the crimes with S.P. in Cuyahoga County without necessitating the introduction of evidence regarding what happened in West Virginia and Tennessee. Accordingly, the other acts testimony was not
аdmissible under the common scheme, plan, or system exception. Wright, 8th Dist. No. 93068, 2011-Ohio-3575, ¶ 50.
{17} Nothing in the record before us would persuade us to depart from our prоnouncements above. Id. Accordingly, we overrule the first assigned error.
Defective Indictment
{18} In the second assigned error, Wright argues the amended charge of gross sexual imposition was defective because the trial court referenced the incorrect dates of the alleged offenses. We find no merit to Wright‘s assertion.
{19} A guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt.
{20} In this case, despite Wright‘s postsentence allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that Wright knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the amended charge of gross sexual imposition. By voluntarily entering a guilty plea, Wright waived his right to a direct appeal of any alleged defects in the
{21} Here, voluntarily pleading guilty while being represented by cоunsel and while admitting that there was a factual basis for the plea, constitutes a waiver of attack upon any alleged defects in the indictment. Although the trial court allegedly referenced the incorrect date, it does not affect the validity of Wright‘s conviction. Accordingly, we оverrule the second assigned error.
{22} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
The cоurt finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR