State v. Honeycutt ( 2024 )

[Cite as State v. Honeycutt, 2024-Ohio-2507.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ASHTABULA COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2024-A-0013
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Criminal Appeal from the
- vs - Court of Common Pleas
STEVEN HONEYCUTT,
Trial Court No. 2023 CR 00146
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION
Decided: June 28, 2024
Judgment: Affirmed
Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Mark Majer, Assistant
Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Margaret Brunarski, Ashtabula County Public Defender, and Michael J. Ledenko,
Assistant Public Defender, 22 East Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For
Defendant-Appellant).
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Steven Honeycutt (“Mr. Honeycutt”), appeals from the judgment
of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to a prison term of 15
years to life following a jury trial in which he was found guilty of one count of rape involving
a victim under ten years of age.
{¶2} Mr. Honeycutt raises a single assignment of error, contending he received
ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
{¶3} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find Mr. Honeycutt
has failed to establish trial counsel’s deficient performance or resulting prejudice.
Defense counsel’s elicitation of other-acts testimony while cross-examining a state
witness was part of his trial strategy to challenge her credibility. In addition, it is unlikely
that defense counsel’s timely objection to the date range alleged in the indictment would
have been successful.
{¶4} Thus, Mr. Honeycutt’s sole assignment of error is without merit, and we
affirm the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶5} In 2020, S.B. was seven years old and lived with her mother in Conneaut,
Ohio. Mr. Honeycutt and S.B’s mother met while playing an online video game, and they
began dating. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Honeycutt moved from Virginia into the Conneaut
home. In 2021, Mr. Honeycutt and S.B.’s mother had a son together. During this period,
S.B.’s mother worked outside the home, and Mr. Honeycutt stayed at home with the
children.
{¶6} According to S.B., Mr. Honeycutt made her engage in sexual conduct with
him on multiple occasions. At the end of 2022, Mr. Honeycutt and S.B.’s mother ended
their relationship, and he moved out. S.B. told a friend that Mr. Honeycutt had sexually
abused her, and the friend informed both her mother and S.B.’s mother. S.B.’s mother
discussed the matter with S.B. and took her to the emergency room. An ambulance
subsequently transported S.B. to a children’s hospital in Cleveland, where a sexual
assault nurse examiner (“SANE nurse”) treated her.
{¶7} S.B.’s allegations against Mr. Honeycutt were reported to the Conneaut
Police Department. Based on the information received, Dets. Lardi and Cleveland
searched S.B.’s bedroom. They removed a piece of carpet that appeared to contain
stains and sent it to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (“BCI”) for testing. Two
2
Case No. 2024-A-0013
samples showed the presence of semen consistent with Mr. Honeycutt’s DNA profile and
non-semen consistent with S.B.’s DNA profile.
{¶8} In 2023, the Ashtabula County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Honeycutt on three
counts of rape, first-degree felonies, in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and (B). The
state alleged that the offenses occurred on or about June 1, 2020, through December 19,
2022, and involved a victim who was less than ten years of age.
{¶9} Mr. Honeycutt appeared with counsel and entered not guilty pleas. He filed
a motion to determine S.B.’s competency and for a mental and psychological
examination. The trial court held an in-camera hearing, found S.B. was competent to
testify, and overruled the request for a mental/psychological examination.
{¶10} The matter was tried to a jury. The state presented testimony from S.B.’s
mother; S.B., who was ten years old at trial; S.B.’s friend, who was 13 years old at trial;
the friend’s mother; the SANE nurse; Dets. Lardi and Cleveland; and a forensic scientist
from BCI.
{¶11} On cross-examination, S.B.’s friend admitted that she had smoked
marijuana with Mr. Honeycutt. On one occasion, Mr. Honeycutt provided it; on another
occasion, she stole it from her mother, who had a medical marijuana card. The friend
also admitted to stealing money from her mother’s purse that Mr. Honeycutt used to buy
marijuana.
{¶12} The defense rested without presenting witnesses or evidence. Following
the submission of exhibits, the state moved to amend the indictment pursuant to Crim.R.
7(D) to remove references to S.B. being six years old at the time of the alleged offenses
because the trial evidence indicated she was older. The defense opposed the state’s
3
Case No. 2024-A-0013
motion. The trial court permitted the amendment, finding that it would not change the
character of the alleged offenses or increase any of the possible penalties.
{¶13} Following deliberations, the jury found Mr. Honeycutt guilty of count one and
not guilty of counts two and three.
{¶14} At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel orally moved for a mistrial
based on the amendment of the indictment. Defense counsel contended that amending
“[t]he dates involved” denied Mr. Honeycutt his right to file a notice of alibi. The state
opposed the motion, stating that the date ranges were not amended. The trial court
denied the motion.
{¶15} The trial court heard argument from counsel and a victim impact statement
from S.B.’s mother and sentenced Mr. Honeycutt to a prison term of 15 years to life. Mr.
Honeycutt appealed and raises the following sole assignment of error:
{¶16} “Steven Honeycutt received ineffective assistance of trial counsel who
substantially underperformed in trial counsel’s duty to Honeycutt that undermined the
proper functioning of the adversarial process such that the trial cannot be relied on as
having produced a just result.”
Standard of Review
{¶17} “A convicted defendant’s claim that counsel’s assistance was so defective
as to require reversal of a conviction . . . has two components. First, the defendant must
show that counsel’s performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made
errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the
defendant by the Sixth Amendment.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
“Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the
defense.” Id. In other words, “[t]he defendant must show that there is a reasonable
4
Case No. 2024-A-0013
probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome.” Id. at 694.
Other-Acts Testimony
{¶18} Mr. Honeycutt first argues that trial counsel was ineffective for eliciting
other-acts testimony. In particular, Mr. Honeycutt objects to the testimony from S.B.’s
friend during cross-examination indicating that he provided her with marijuana. According
to Mr. Honeycutt, this would create the “obvious impression” in the jury’s mind that he
engaged in “grooming behaviors.”
{¶19} “Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance is to be highly deferential, and
reviewing courts must refrain from second-guessing the strategic decisions of trial
counsel.” State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 558 (1995). “Debatable trial tactics
generally do not constitute a deprivation of effective counsel.” State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio
St.3d 72, 85 (1995). This court and others have recognized that the use of other-acts
evidence to challenge a witness’ credibility is a matter of trial strategy. See, e.g., State v.
Stalnaker, 2005-Ohio-7042, ¶ 52 (11th Dist.); State v. Fuller, 1993 WL 437596, *9-10 (8th
Dist. Oct. 28, 1993); State v. C.D.S., 2021-Ohio-4492, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.); State v.
Bradshaw, 2023-Ohio-1244, ¶ 41 (3d Dist.).
{¶20} Here, the friend testified that S.B. told her about Mr. Honeycutt’s sexual
abuse. Defense counsel, therefore, attempted to undermine the friend’s credibility, and
by implication, S.B.’s allegations. In addition to asking the friend about using marijuana
with Mr. Honeycutt, defense counsel asked her about stealing money and marijuana from
her mother, stealing alcohol from a store, and being suspended from school for smoking
cigarettes. Defense counsel’s elicitation of other-acts testimony was part of that trial
5
Case No. 2024-A-0013
strategy. Accordingly, Mr. Honeycutt has failed to demonstrate trial counsel’s deficient
performance.
{¶21} Mr. Honeycutt also fails to demonstrate resulting prejudice. Since the jury
found him not guilty of two additional counts of rape, the record suggests the jury’s
verdicts were not based on any impermissible other-acts evidence. See Bradshaw at ¶
42; State v. Gardner, 2010-Ohio-6479, ¶ 33 (2d Dist.).
Indictment
{¶22} Mr. Honeycutt next argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
timely object to the date range alleged in the indictment, i.e., that the offenses occurred
on or about June 1, 2020, through December 19, 2022.
{¶23} Under the federal and Ohio Constitutions, “a person accused of a felony is
entitled to an indictment setting forth the ‘nature and cause of the accusation.’” State v.
Troisi, 2022-Ohio-3582, ¶ 21. “‘An indictment meets constitutional requirements if it “first,
contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge
against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or
conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense.”’” Id. at ¶ 22, quoting State
v. Childs, 88 Ohio St.3d 558, 564-565 (2000), quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S.
87, 117 (1974).
{¶24} Mr. Honeycutt contends that his indictment does not satisfy the foregoing
requirements but cites no authority in support of his argument. By contrast, the Supreme
Court of Ohio has held, “Ordinarily, precise times and dates are not essential elements of
offenses. Thus, the failure to provide dates and times in an indictment will not alone
provide a basis for dismissal of the charges.” State v. Sellards, 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 171
(1985).
6
Case No. 2024-A-0013
{¶25} This court has further held that “[w]hen the victim is a child, ‘[a]n allowance
for reasonableness and inexactitude must be made for such cases because many child
victims are unable to remember exact dates and times * * *.’” State v. Gomez, 2017-
Ohio-8146, ¶ 26 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Neal, 2016-Ohio-64, ¶ 26-27 (4th Dist.).
Therefore, an “indictment . . . using the words of the statute, the victim’s initials, years of
birth, and estimated time frame of the charges was sufficient to notify [the defendant] of
the offenses to enable him to defend against the allegations and to protect himself from
future prosecution for the same offense.” Id. at ¶ 27.
{¶26} Since it is unlikely that defense counsel’s timely objection to the indictment
would have been successful, Mr. Honeycutt has failed to demonstrate deficient
performance or resulting prejudice.
{¶27} Mr. Honeycutt’s sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶28} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of
Common Pleas is affirmed.
MATT LYNCH, J.,
ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,
concur.
7
Case No. 2024-A-0013