State v. Crawford ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Crawford, 2011-Ohio-5809.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF DARKE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO :
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 10-CA-15
vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 10-CR-05
TERESA A. CRAWFORD : (Criminal Appeal from
Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
. . . . . . . . .
O P I N I O N
Rendered on the 10th day of November, 2011.
. . . . . . . . .
R. Kelly Ormsby, III, Atty. Reg. No. 0020615, Prosecuting Attorney,
Darke County Prosecutor’s Office, Courthouse, Third Floor,
Greenville, OH 45331
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
Arthur A. Ames, Atty. Reg. No. 0018227, 383 Talbott Tower, Dayton,
OH 45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
. . . . . . . . .
GRADY, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant, Teresa Crawford, appeals from her conviction
and sentence for aggravated burglary, robbery, theft from an
elderly person, and kidnapping.
{¶ 2} This case involves a home invasion that occurred near
2
Greenville, Ohio, on January 3, 2010. The victim, Juanita McCain,
is a seventy-one year old widow and Defendant’s cousin. Defendant
had recruited two friends from Akron, Ohio, Clarence Blair and
George Simpson, to help her rob the victim, who lived alone and
kept cash and other valuable property in her home.
{¶ 3} Defendant, Blair, Simpson, and a fourth person, Jessica
Benner, drove to McCain’s residence in Defendant’s vehicle and
pulled into the garage. Defendant and Benner remained in the
garage while Blair and Simpson entered the home wearing masks.
Blair was armed with a BB gun that looked like a firearm. Over
a period of hours, the men repeatedly questioned McCain about where
she kept her cash and other valuables, and they threatened to kill
her if she did not cooperate. When not questioning McCain, the
men kept her locked inside a closet.
{¶ 4} Meanwhile, Defendant gave directions to Blair and Simpson
as to what they should do next, and assisted them in loading up
the stolen property. After stealing more than one hundred thousand
dollars in cash and other property, Blair and Simpson duct taped
McCain to a chair inside the closet and warned her not to come
out. McCain remained in that closet for the rest of the day, all
through the night, and into the next morning. McCain finally
worked herself free of the duct tape and came out.
{¶ 5} McCain tried to call for help but the defendants had
3
disabled the phones. McCain then decided to use her car to go
for help but discovered the defendants had stolen her car. McCain
finally walked to a neighbor’s home where police were called.
McCain’s stolen vehicle was found parked in Dayton and placed under
police surveillance. When Defendant, Blair, and Simpson entered
the vehicle and attempted to drive away, they were arrested. All
three defendants made admissions and revealed the involvement of
a fourth defendant, Jessica Benner.
{¶ 6} Defendant, Blair, and Simpson were indicted on one count
of aggravated burglary, R.C. 2911.11(A)(1), one count of robbery,
R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), one count of theft from an elderly person,
R.C. 2913.02(A)(4), (B)(3), and one count of kidnapping, R.C.
2905.01(A)(2). Blair and Simpson pled guilty to all of the
charges. As part of their plea agreement, they agreed to testify
against Defendant. Blair and Simpson were sentenced to eleven
years and ten years, respectively.
{¶ 7} On April 16, 2010, Defendant entered pleas of guilty to
all of the charges. The plea agreement specified that the State
would recommend a prison term of at least sixteen years. At
sentencing, the trial court heard oral statements by the
prosecutor, defense counsel, and Defendant. The court then heard
victim impact statements by McCain and Bill Miller, who is a cousin
of both McCain, the victim, and Defendant. The trial court
4
sentenced Defendant to multiple prison terms totaling seventeen
years.
{¶ 8} Defendant appealed to this court.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 9} “APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
DUE TO COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE STATEMENTS OF, OR TO
MOVE TO STRIKE THE STATEMENTS OF, WILLIAM MILLER AT THE SENTENCING
HEARING.”
{¶ 10} Counsel’s performance will not be deemed ineffective
unless and until counsel’s performance is proved to have fallen
below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in
addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.
Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052,
80 L.Ed.2d 674. To show that a defendant has been prejudiced by
counsel’s deficient performance, the defendant must affirmatively
demonstrate to a reasonable probability that were it not for
counsel’s errors, the result of the trial would have been different.
Id.; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136.
{¶ 11} At the sentencing hearing, the trial court heard victim
impact statements by both the victim, Juanita McCain, and Bill
Miller, who is a cousin of both Juanita McCain and Defendant.
In his comments, Miller said that Defendant is a lifelong criminal.
Miller stated that in his opinion Defendant is a liar, a thief,
5
and a menace to society. Miller claimed that his parents and
Defendant’s parents live in fear of what might happen to their
finances because of Defendant, and that Defendant had previously
stolen a large sum of money from another elderly aunt, Luella
Miller. According to Miller, it was fortunate that Juanita McCain,
a severe asthmatic, did not die during these events or we would
be talking about murder. Miller asked the trial court to sentence
Defendant to the maximum sentence.
{¶ 12} In her sole assignment of error, Defendant argues that
she was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial because
her counsel failed to object to Miller’s comments. Citing Crim.R.
32(A)(3), Defendant argues that it was improper to allow Miller
to make any statement because he was not the victim in this case.
Defendant claims that her counsel’s failure to object to Miller’s
statements prejudiced her because Miller’s statements inflamed
the court to such an extent that the court sentenced Defendant
to a much longer prison term than the other defendants in this
case.
{¶ 13} Crim.R. 32(A)(3) provides: “At the time of imposing
sentence, the court shall * * * [a]fford the victim the rights
provided by law.” The rule implements the victim’s rights
provision of R.C. Chapter 2930. The rule does not thereby impose
a limitation on the proceedings in other respects.
6
{¶ 14} R.C. 2929.19(A)(1) provides: “At the [sentencing]
hearing, the offender, the prosecuting attorney, the victim or
the victim’s representative in accordance with section 2930.14
of the Revised Code, and, with the approval of the court, any other
person may present information relevant to the imposition of
sentence in the case.”
{¶ 15} Defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for
failing to object to the admission of Miller’s statements as an
error of law, because R.C. 2929.19(A)(1) authorizes the court to
admit them. Defendant suggests that the court nevertheless abused
its discretion in admitting Miller’s statements, a matter to which
counsel had a duty to object.
{¶ 16} We find no abuse of discretion. The matters to which
Miller spoke fall squarely within the purposes of felony sentencing
in R.C. 2929.11 that guide the court and the seriousness and
recidivism factors in R.C. 2929.12 that the court must consider
when imposing a sentence. The substance of Miller’s statements
may have prejudiced Defendant’s interests, but admitting those
statements did not prejudice Defendant’s rights.
{¶ 17} Furthermore, a review of this record amply demonstrates
that the longer prison sentence imposed upon Defendant, as opposed
to the shorter sentences imposed upon the co-defendants, was not
a product of Miller’s inflammatory comments at sentencing but
7
rather the fact that Defendant planned this robbery and recruited
other, younger people to assist her in carrying it out. Also,
Defendant has a very lengthy criminal history and has been in and
out of prison much of her life. At the time of committing this
offense, Defendant was on community control for a forgery
conviction. Additionally, the victim of this crime was
Defendant’s own elderly relative, who was so frightened by this
crime that she left her home and moved to a new location. The
court found this crime was the worst form of the offense, shocked
the conscience of the community, and that Defendant was the most
serious repeat offender. The seriousness and recidivism factors
in R.C. 2929.12(B)(1), (6), and (D)(1), (2), and (3) apply in this
case.
{¶ 18} Having failed to demonstrate deficient performance by
counsel or resulting prejudice, ineffective assistance of counsel
has not been shown.
{¶ 19} Defendant’s assignment of error is overruled. The
judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
FAIN, J., And HALL, J., concur.
8
Copies mailed to:
R. Kelly Ormsby, III, Esq.
Arthur A. Ames, Esq.
Hon. Jonathan P. Hein