State v. Davis

[Cite as State v. Davis, 2018-Ohio-2118.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-17-1041
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201503092
v.
Anthony E. Davis DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: June 1, 2018
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Brenda J. Majdalani, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Neil S. McElroy, for appellant.
*****
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a January 24, 2017 judgment of the Lucas County
Court of Common Pleas, sentencing appellant to an 11-year term of incarceration on
appellant’s rape conviction, and an 8-year term of incarceration on appellant’s conviction
of corruption of another with drugs conviction, ordered to be served consecutively. For
the reasons set forth below, this court affirms the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 2} Appellant, Anthony E. Davis, sets forth the following sole assignment of
error:
I. Mr. Davis did not receive the effective assistance of counsel as
guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Ohio.
{¶ 3} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. The instant case
stems from an incident in which appellant, while on community control for prior
convictions, took a woman he met on Facebook to a North Toledo motel, furnished her
with various unlawful drugs, and after she was compromised by the drugs, raped her.
The DNA retrieved from the victim’s rape kit was a match for appellant.
{¶ 4} On December 10, 2015, appellant was indicted on one count of rape, in
violation of R.C. 2907.02, a felony of the first degree, and one count of corruption of
another with drugs, in violation of R.C. 2925.02, a felony of the second degree. The case
proceeded to a bench trial on November 14, 2016. On November 18, 2016, appellant was
found guilty of the offenses.
{¶ 5} Appellant was sentenced to an 11-year term of incarceration on the rape
conviction, and an 8-year term of incarceration on the corruption of another with drugs
conviction, ordered to be served consecutively. This appeal ensued.
{¶ 6} In the sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that he received ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. We do not concur.
2.
{¶ 7} To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an appellant must
show both that counsel’s representation was objectively deficient and, but for the
demonstrated deficiencies, the outcome of the case would have been different. Strickland
v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).
{¶ 8} In support of this appeal, appellant maintains that trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to dispute appellant’s criminal record, “[A]s reported in the PSI
report.” The entire basis of appellant’s position in this case is prefaced upon trial
counsel’s statement to the court in the course of the proceedings below that, “[Appellant]
doesn’t believe that there’s been six [felony] convictions.”
{¶ 9} Appellant implies that the information before the trial court regarding
appellant’s prior criminal history was inaccurate in a way so as to prejudicially impact
appellant. The record of evidence runs counter to this assertion.
{¶ 10} The record of evidence encompasses no evidence of any kind in support of
appellant’s belief that the PSI prejudicially misrepresented appellant’s criminal history.
On the contrary, the record reflects that appellant’s full criminal history actually includes
more prior felonies than the number disputed by appellant. (Emphasis added).
{¶ 11} We find that the alleged failure of trial counsel to object to appellant’s
criminal history as reported to the trial court, which was not reported in an incorrectly
prejudicial way, does not constitute an objective deficiency of trial counsel. Appellant
cannot demonstrate that the outcome of the matter would have been different but for
3.
declining to pursue a meritless claim. We find appellant’s assignment of error not well-
taken.
{¶ 12} On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
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
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
James D. Jensen, 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/.
4.