State v. Brewton ( 2020 )

[Cite as State v. Brewton, 2020-Ohio-1234.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-19-1034
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201703044
v.
Ben Brewton DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: March 31, 2020
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Lauren Carpenter, for appellee.
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
*****
ZMUDA, P.J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appeal from the judgment of the Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas, general division, sentencing appellant after an Alford
plea to a term of life with parole eligibility after 20 years of imprisonment. Finding no
error, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} The events leading to this case occurred in July 2015, at a home on Gordon
Street in Toledo, Ohio. At that time, Brewton had moved in with his girlfriend, Vicky,
who was herself staying with 61-year old Susan Furr, a co-worker and friend of Vicky.
When Brewton needed a place to stay while on electronic monitoring in an unrelated
case, Furr agreed to let Brewton move in. Brewton continued to live with Furr, even after
Vicky moved out.
{¶ 3} The morning of July 23, 2015, Furr left work, arriving home around 10:00
a.m. Friends and co-workers had no more contact with her after she left work, which was
unusual and caused concern. On this date, between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., three ATM
withdrawals were made from Furr’s account, using her debit card. Around 8:00 p.m.,
officers conducted a traffic stop of Furr’s vehicle for a license plate violation. Brewton
was driving the vehicle, and police issued him a ticket, noting a large sum of cash on his
lap, appearing to be around a thousand dollars.
{¶ 4} Furr did not report for her work shift the night of July 23, 2015. In the
evening of July 24, officers conducted a welfare check at Furr’s residence, with authority
to enter the home. They found a dog closed in a bathroom, and at the bottom of the
basement steps, they discovered Furr, deceased. Furr’s wrists and ankles were bound,
and her body was covered in bedding. The coroner later determined the cause of death as
multiple blunt force trauma and strangulation, and ruled the death a homicide.
2.
{¶ 5} The investigation of this offense continued. In the meantime, Brewton was
sentenced to prison on unrelated charges. This case went dormant, but eventually, the
cold case unit took the case, and investigators interviewed Brewton at prison in
September 2017. Brewton initially denied any involvement, but eventually claimed he
witnessed Furr’s death. After police confronted Brewton with physical evidence, he
admitted to striking Furr in the head with a hammer because she had seen his face.
Brewton then admitted to taking Furr’s ATM card, forcing Furr to give him the PIN
while beating her with the hammer. He admitted to using the card and PIN to withdraw
funds from Furr’s account. Police recovered Brewton’s DNA from the hammer, retrieved
from Furr’s bedroom of the house.
{¶ 6} On November 27, 2017, Brewton was indicted on three counts: Count 1,
aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B) and (F), an unclassified felony;
Count 2, murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B) and 2929.02, an unclassified felony; and
Count 3, aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(3) and (C), a felony of the
first degree.
{¶ 7} Brewton was conveyed from prison, and arraigned on January 23, 2018.
The trial court appointed counsel, and Brewton entered not guilty pleas as to all counts.
Prior to entering his plea, Brewton filed a motion for funds to retain an investigator,
which was granted, and a motion to suppress. Following the state’s response to his
motion to suppress, the trial court granted Brewton’s trial counsel leave to file a
supplemental motion, providing more specificity regarding the suppression issues.
3.
{¶ 8} In his supplemental memorandum, Brewton raised issues regarding his
competency to consent to interrogation, citing his tenth grade education and limited
reading skills. He also argued that, at the time of the September 18, 2017 interview, he
had begun serving a 24-month prison sentence in unrelated cases, and was not receiving
proper medical or mental health care.1
{¶ 9} After several continuances of the suppression hearing, the trial court
appointed new counsel for Brewton. At the scheduled suppression hearing, trial counsel
withdrew the motion, and a trial date was set.
{¶ 10} On January 11, 2019, Brewton entered a plea of guilty pursuant to North
Carolina v. Alford to Count 1, aggravated murder, with the state recommending a
sentence of life with parole eligibility after 20 years and dismissal of the remaining
charges. The trial court engaged in a Crim.R. 11 colloquy with Brewton. The trial court
determined that Brewton was satisfied with his counsel’s assistance and understood the
potential sentence versus the sentence recommended by the state but not binding on the
court. The trial court advised Brewton of his constitutional rights, and explained the
effect of his plea. Brewton articulated his understanding of these rights and his
understanding of the plea. The trial court accepted the plea, entered a finding of guilt as
to Count 1, and continued the matter for sentencing.
1
At the time of that interview, Brewton was recovering in prison from a gunshot wound
to his chest, with the injury sustained prior to his incarceration.
4.
{¶ 11} On January 17, 2019, the trial court sentenced Brewton to a term of life
imprisonment with parole eligibility after 20 years, and after making the required
statutory findings, ordered the sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence
Brewton was serving in a prior case. The trial court entered a nolle prosequi as to
Counts 2 and 3, and waived all costs.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 12} Brewton now appeals the trial court’s judgment, asserting the following
assignments of error.
1. Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation
of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution and Article I, § 10 of the Ohio Constitution
2. The trial court erred to the prejudice of appellant in accepting a
guilty plea, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford which was not made
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, in violation of appellant’s Due
Process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution and Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution.
III. Analysis
{¶ 13} In his first assignment of error, Brewton argues his trial counsel was
ineffective in failing to seek a competency evaluation, based on his own assertions during
the proceedings that he “needed help” and had a “messed up mindset.”
5.
{¶ 14} We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel using a two-part
analysis. First, we consider whether trial counsel’s performance “fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 142, 538 N.E.2d 373(1989), quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80
L.Ed.2d 675 (1984). Second, if we find deficient performance, we must then consider
whether prejudice occurred as a consequence. Bradley at 142, citing Strickland at 691.
{¶ 15} In reviewing counsel’s performance, our scrutiny “must be highly
deferential[.]” Bradley at 142, quoting Strickland at 689. We presume a properly
licensed attorney is competent. (Citation omitted.) State v. Shaw, 6th Dist. Lucas No.
L-15-1165, 2016-Ohio-7699, ¶ 17. Furthermore, we “indulge a strong presumption that
counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance[.]”
Bradley at 142, quoting Strickland at 689.
{¶ 16} Even if we find counsel’s performance fell below the standard of
reasonableness, we will not reverse unless we also find that this performance resulted in
prejudice. Bradley at 142. “An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable,
does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no
effect on the judgment.” Bradley at 142, quoting Strickland at 691. Therefore, to
warrant reversal, Brewton must demonstrate that, but for his trial counsel’s error, he
would have realized a different result in the proceeding. Bradley at 142, citing Strickland
at 691. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in
the outcome.” Strickland at 694.
6.
{¶ 17} In arguing his trial counsel was ineffective, Brewton suggests that the
record demonstrated a competency issue. In support, Brewton relies on the reference to
his mental state in seeking to suppress his statement, as well as the “horrific, brutal nature
of the offense.” Based on these circumstances, Brewton argues his counsel should have
entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) on his behalf, and requested a
mental health evaluation. The record, however, is devoid of any evidence warranting
such action.
{¶ 18} “A person is ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ relative to a charge of an
offense only if the person proves [by a preponderance of the evidence] that at the time of
the commission of the offense, the person did not know, as a result of a severe mental
disease or defect, the wrongfulness of the person's acts.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(14). In
contrast, the standard for competency requires inquiry into a defendant’s present mental
condition to determine whether the defendant understands the nature of the proceedings
and has the ability to assist trial counsel with the defense. State v. Monford, 190 Ohio
App.3d 35, 2010-Ohio-4732, 940 N.E.2d 634, ¶ 69-70 (10th Dist.), citing R.C. 2945.37.
{¶ 19} Here, Brewton identifies no portion of the record that indicates he suffered
from any type of mental illness at the time of the offense, or at any time in his life, as
providing a basis for an insanity defense. In order to find trial counsel’s performance
deficient, there must be some indication that an NGRI plea would have “a reasonable
probability of success” based on the facts and circumstances in the case. State v. Anaya,
7.
6th Dist. Lucas No. L-06-1375, 2008-Ohio-1853, ¶ 29, citing State v. Brown, 84 Ohio
App.3d 414, 421, 616 N.E.2d 1179 (8th Dist.1992).
{¶ 20} With nothing in the record to indicate mental illness, Brewton’s trial
counsel was not deficient in failing to assert the defense of NGRI. Anaya at ¶ 29, citing
State v. Twyman, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19086, 2002-Ohio-3558, ¶ 73. Trial counsel
may not be deemed ineffective for failing to attempt a “futile act.” State v. Leu, 6th Dist.
Lucas No. L-17-1265, 2019-Ohio-3404, ¶ 47, citing State v. Conkright, 6th Dist. Lucas
No. L-06-1107, 2007-Ohio-5315, ¶ 50 (no ineffective assistance because failing to file a
meritless motion would be a “futile act”). Accordingly, we find Brewton’s first
assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 21} In his second assignment of error, Brewton argues his plea was not
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Brewton acknowledges the governing rule, Crim.R.
11(C), and concedes that the trial court properly followed the rule in fully explaining the
charges and penalties, conveyed all pertinent information, and inquired regarding
Brewton’s understanding. During a plea hearing, a trial court may not accept a guilty
plea “without first addressing the defendant personally and doing all of the following” as
provided by Crim.R. 11(C)(2):
(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily,
with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum
penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for
8.
probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the
sentencing hearing.
(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant
understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that the court,
upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentence.
(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant
understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial,
to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in the defendant's favor, and to require the state to
prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the
defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.
{¶ 22} Ordinarily, we review a challenge regarding the voluntariness of a plea for
strict compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). See, e.g., State v. Hayward, 6th Dist. Wood No.
WD-17-010, 2017-Ohio-8611, ¶ 6 (strict compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) is required).
Here, Brewton acknowledges the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). He also
concedes his own failure to seek to withdraw his plea. Even so, Brewton contends his
plea was not voluntary because he indicated a wish for trial, expressed a sense of
hopelessness in the face of a lengthy prison term, and felt compelled to enter his plea as a
result of this hopelessness rather than any outside influence or coercive force.
{¶ 23} To be clear, Brewton does not proclaim his innocence, or dispute any of the
evidence the state was prepared to introduce against him in a trial. The lengthy prison
9.
sentence, moreover, was the shortest possible sentence for the offense for which he
entered a plea. Brewton presents no legal authority to support his argument that hopeless
feelings regarding a lengthy prison term will render a plea involuntary.
{¶ 24} Additionally, Brewton does not argue the trial court failed to explain any of
his constitutional rights. Pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2), a trial court need only ensure a
defendant “subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is
waiving.” State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 31,
citing State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990). The fact that
Brewton experienced feelings of hopelessness may be viewed as an indication that the
trial court effectively conveyed complete information to Brewton.
{¶ 25} We find no provision, within Crim.R. 11(C)(2) or elsewhere in the law,
requiring a defendant to enter into a plea free of hopeless feelings in order for that plea to
be considered knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Because there is no challenge to the
trial court’s compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2), and Brewton identifies no authority to
support his theory of involuntariness due to hopelessness, we find no error regarding his
plea. Brewton’s second assignment of error, therefore, is not well-taken.
IV. Conclusion.
{¶ 26} Finding substantial justice has been done, we hereby affirm the judgment
of the Lucas County Common Pleas Court, general division. Appellant is assessed the
costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
10.
State v. Brewton
C.A. No. L-19-1034
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
_______________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, P.J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
11.