DocketNumber: Trial No. B-9903838, Appeal No. C-990576.
Filed Date: 8/9/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The first assignment of error, alleging that the trial court erred in failing to order a mistrial after defense counsel made the court aware that a juror had seen Satterfield in handcuffs, is overruled.
After the jury had been sworn in, but prior to opening statements, defense counsel informed the trial court that one of the jurors had seen Satterfield in handcuffs in the hallway of the courthouse. Defense counsel declined the trial court's offer to question the juror about the incident, opting instead for a curative instruction, which the trial court gave as part of the jury charge at the end of the case.
A defendant's right to a fair trial is not prejudiced by the use of handcuffs or shackles where the jurors' view of the defendant in custody is brief, inadvertent, and outside of the courtroom. See State v. Kidder (1987),
From defense counsel's description of the incident, it is clear that any glimpse of Satterfield in handcuffs was brief, inadvertent, and outside the courtroom. There is no evidence that Satterfield's right to a fair trial was prejudiced or that the brief sighting contributed in any way to the jury's verdict. Under these circumstances, we hold that the trial court did not err in failing to order a mistrial.
The second assignment of error is overruled because Satterfield has not demonstrated that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. SeeStrickland v. Washington (1984),
The third assignment of error, which alleges that the trial court erred in overruling Satterfield's motion for a mistrial without conducting a hearing regarding whether the court's bailiff had improperly communicated with the jury during its deliberations, is overruled.
After the jury had rendered a verdict, defense counsel moved for a mistrial:
What I was told was that [the bailiff] went and talked to them and was told that they were close. Obviously, it's one thing initiating contact. My understanding is while deliberating, no one is supposed to go in on them, and I'm at least uncomfortable at the very least, what's going on here.
R.C.
It is clear from defense counsel's statement that the bailiff had asked the jurors whether they had reached a verdict and was told that "they were close." R.C.
The fourth assignment of error is overruled because the record does not demonstrate any confusion on the part of the jury about the renumbering of the counts in the indictment. The renumbering occurred before the jury was selected.
The fifth assignment of error, which alleges that the trial court erred in sentencing Satterfield to the maximum term of imprisonment for felonious assault, and in ordering that sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed for a community-control violation in another case, is overruled.
Pursuant to R.C.
R.C.
In giving Satterfield the maximum sentence for felonious assault and making that sentence consecutive to the one imposed for the community-control violation, the trial court found that Satterfield (1) had viciously beaten the female victim of the felonious assault with a brick, causing serious physical harm; (2) was on community control at the time of the offense; (3) had prior unsuccessful probation or parole; (4) had a history of violent offenses; (5) was a "dangerous man;" (6) showed no remorse; (7) posed a great risk of recidivism; and (8) had committed the worst form of the offense. Taking into consideration all these facts, we hold that the trial court made sufficient findings to impose a maximum, consecutive sentence. We do not clearly and convincingly find that the record does not support the sentence.
Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Further, a certified copy of this Judgment Entry shall constitute the mandate, which shall be sent to the trial court under App.R. 27. Costs shall be taxed under App.R. 24.
Doan, P.J., Gorman and Sundermann, JJ.