State v. Thompson ( 2019 )

[Cite as State v. Thompson, 2019-Ohio-1454.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUDGES:
STATE OF OHIO : Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
:
-vs- :
: Case No. 18CA74
JOSHUA THOMPSON :
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Richland County
Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 18-CR-
0100
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 8, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
GARY BISHOP RANDALL E. FRY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 10 West Newlon Place
BY: JOSEPH C. SNYDER Mansfield, OH 44902
Assistant Prosecutor
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, OH 44902
Baldwin, J.
Richland County, Case No. 18CA74 2
{¶1} Joshua Thompson appeals the sentence imposed by the Richland County
Court of Common Pleas after he entered a guilty plea to six counts of burglary in violation
of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), felonies of the third degree. Appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE CASE
{¶2} The facts that lead to the charges filed against appellant in this matter are
irrelevant to the resolution of the appeal.
{¶3} Appellant was charged with twelve counts of Burglary in violation of R.C.
2911.12(A)(3). After entering a plea of not guilty, appellant changed his plea to guilty as
part of a negotiated plea. Six charges were dismissed and appellant plead guilty to the
remaining six. He was found guilty and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of nine
years, ordered to pay several thousand dollars in restitution to the victims and was notified
of mandatory post release control. Appellant filed a timely appeal and submitted one
assignment of error:
{¶4} I. THE APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT
RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, AS THE APPELLANT'S TRIAL
ATTORNEY FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE SENTENCE THE APPELLANT RECEIVED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶5} Our standard of review for ineffective assistance claims is set forth in
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Ohio
adopted this standard in the case of State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St. 3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373
(1989). These cases require a two-pronged analysis in reviewing a claim for ineffective
assistance of counsel. First, we must determine whether counsel's assistance was
ineffective; i.e., whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of
Richland County, Case No. 18CA74 3
reasonable representation and was violative of any of his or her essential duties to the
client. If we find ineffective assistance of counsel, we must then determine whether or not
the defense was actually prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness such that the reliability
of the outcome of the trial is suspect. This requires a showing there is a reasonable
probability that but for counsel's unprofessional error, the outcome of the trial would have
been different. Id.
{¶6} Trial counsel is entitled to a strong presumption all decisions fall within the
wide range of reasonable professional assistance. State v. Sallie, 81 Ohio St. 3d 673, 675,
693 N.E.2d 267 (1998). In addition, the United States Supreme Court and the Ohio
Supreme Court have held a reviewing court “need not determine whether counsel's
performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as
a result of the alleged deficiencies.” Bradley at 143, quoting Strickland at 697. Even
debatable trial tactics and strategies do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
State v. Clayton, 62 Ohio St. 2d 45, 402 N.E.2d 1189 (1980).
ANALYSIS
{¶7} Appellant’s assignment of error proposes that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel at the trial level, but the argument offered in support of that
assignment suffers from a fatal lack of detail. Appellant claims trial counsel failed in his
obligation to object to the sentence imposed by the trial court, but he does not disclose
any basis for an objection. As stated, appellant is arguing that trial counsel has an
obligation to his client to enter an objection to any sentence imposed by the trial court.
Appellant offers no argument regarding the nature of any objection regarding the
sentence and cites no legal support to demonstrate that making such an objection is an
Richland County, Case No. 18CA74 4
essential duty of trial counsel. The only prejudice arguably suffered by appellant is the
inability to argue that the sentence was, somehow, inappropriate, but appellant makes no
effort to demonstrate that in the absence of this alleged unprofessional conduct, there is
a reasonable possibility the outcome of the sentencing hearing would have been different.
“An appellate court “is not obliged to search the record for some evidence of claimed
error. * * * Rather, an appellant must tell the appellate court specifically where the trial
court's alleged errors may be located in the transcript.” Graham v. City of Findlay Police
Dept. 3rd Dist. Hancock. No. 5-01-32, 2002-Ohio-1215 *4 (Mar. 19, 2002) as quoted in
State v. Kinsey, 5th Dist. Knox No. 08 CA 12, 2008-Ohio-23, ¶ 10. This court is not
obligated to search the record to substantiate appellant’s assertion; however, in the
interest of justice, we will review the sentence imposed by the court below.
{¶8} The trial court imposed the maximum sentence of thirty-six months for each
count, with the sentence on three counts to run concurrently with each other and his
sentence in a related case. The trial court ordered the sentences on the three remaining
counts to run consecutively for an aggregate sentence of nine years, eighteen months
less than the sentence recommended by the state. The trial court stated at the sentencing
hearing and in its sentencing entry that it considered the principles and purposes of
sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and the seriousness and recidivism factors in R.C.
2929.12. The trial court also considered, at the sentencing hearing and within its
sentencing entry, the elements necessary for determination of the appropriateness of
consecutive sentencing under R.C. 2929.14(C). The sentences did not exceed the
maximum permissible sentence per offense. Appellant has failed to highlight any
Richland County, Case No. 18CA74 5
objectionable action in the sentencing process and we have not discovered a basis for an
objection.
{¶9} Appellant’s unsupported assertion that trial counsel rendered ineffective
assistance is not borne out by his argument or the record. Appellant’s sole assignment
of error is denied.
{¶10} The decision of the Richland County Court of Appeals is affirmed.
By Baldwin, J.,
Hoffman, P.J., and
Delaney, J., concur