State v. D'Agostino

[Cite as State v. D'Agostino, 2016-Ohio-1282.]
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF LORAIN )
STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 14CA010707
Appellee
v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT
ENTERED IN THE
TINA D'AGOSTINO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO
Appellant CASE No. 10CR080181
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Dated: March 28, 2016
MOORE, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Tina D’Agostino appeals from the judgment of the Lorain
County Court of Common Pleas denying her petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing.
We affirm.
I.
{¶2} We previously summarized the history of this case on direct appeal from the
criminal convictions as follows:
On the morning of February 27, 2010, [Ms.] D’Agostino and her live-in
boyfriend, Steven Augustus, had a heated argument. [Ms.] D’Agostino ultimately
retreated to their master bedroom and locked herself in while [Mr.] Augustus was
taking a shower. The situation escalated when [Mr.] Augustus tried to gain entry
into the bedroom and [Ms.] D’Agostino refused to let him in. [Mr.] Augustus
then retrieved several tools from the garage and used the tools to open the
bedroom door. When [Mr.] Augustus opened the door, [Ms.] D’Agostino shot
him. She then took [Mr.] Augustus’ truck and drove off while [Mr.] Augustus
stumbled to a neighbor’s house for help.
A grand jury indicted [Ms.] D’Agostino on each of the following counts: (1)
felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2), and an attendant firearm
specification; (2) theft, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1); and (3) domestic
2
violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). Subsequently, the matter proceeded to
a jury trial. At trial, [Ms.] D’Agostino presented expert testimony on battered
woman’s syndrome, and the State presented expert testimony on rebuttal. The
jury found [Ms.] D’Agostino not guilty of theft, but guilty of the lesser included
offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of R.C. 2913.03(A).
Additionally, the jury found her guilty of felonious assault, that charge’s attendant
firearm specification, and domestic violence. The trial court sentenced [Ms.]
D’Agostino on all counts for a total of eight years in prison.
State v. D’Agostino, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 12CA010304, 2014-Ohio-551, ¶ 2-3.
{¶3} Ms. D’Agostino filed a notice of appeal with this Court. There she argued that
her trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance. See id. at ¶ 5. Specifically, she asserted
that trial counsel suffered from medical complications after childbirth that impaired her
performance, that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the testimony of the State’s
rebuttal expert, and that trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to the admissibility of the
State’s expert report. See id. at ¶ 5, 7, 10. Additionally, Ms. D’Agostino argued that the trial
court erred in giving a “duty to retreat” instruction, that the guilty verdicts for felonious assault
and domestic violence were against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the trial court
erred in sentencing her on allied offenses. See id. at ¶ 25, 28, 46. We concluded all of her
arguments were without merit, except for her claim with respect to allied offenses. See id. at ¶
49.
{¶4} While the appeal was pending on the criminal case, Ms. D’Agostino filed a
petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to R.C. 2953.21 and a motion to allow further
supplementation of the petition. In her petition she argued that she had been denied effective
assistance of counsel. She asserted that her trial counsel’s “physical and mental difficulties
continued to be an impediment to her ability to render effective [assistance] of counsel.” She
attached several affidavits to her petition in support of her argument. Ms. D’Agostino further
maintained that an example of the ineffective assistance caused by trial counsel’s unspecified
3
illness was trial counsel’s failure to properly object to the trial court’s self-defense instruction.
Additionally, Ms. D’Agostino pointed to trial counsel’s decision to stipulate to the admissibility
of the State’s expert report as another example of ineffective assistance. Finally, Ms.
D’Agostino maintained that her expert at trial, James R. Eisenberg, Ph.D., would provide
evidence of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness. She maintained that Dr. Eisenberg believed that trial
counsel engaged in insufficient witness preparation, did not understand how to question an
expert witness, and failed to emphasize the self-defense implications inherent in his testimony.
The State responded in opposition. Subsequently, Ms. D’Agostino filed a motion to supplement
the petition with an affidavit of Dr. Eisenberg, which the trial court granted in its ruling on her
petition.
{¶5} Prior to the trial court ruling on Ms. D’Agostino’s petition, this Court issued its
decision in her direct appeal. The trial court, in denying Ms. D’Agostino’s petition, concluded
that Ms. D’Agostino’s arguments with respect to trial counsel’s failure to object to the self-
defense jury instruction and trial counsel’s stipulation to the State’s expert report were barred by
res judicata. The trial court concluded that Ms. D’Agostino’s allegations concerning trial
counsel having an undisclosed ailment that impaired her performance were speculative and not
supported by sufficient grounds. The trial court also determined that Dr. Eisenberg’s testimony
mirrored that of his expert report and that Ms. D’Agostino failed to demonstrate that further
preparation or a different manner of questioning would have altered the trial result. Thus, the
trial court denied her petition without a hearing.
{¶6} Ms. D’Agostino has appealed, raising a single assignment of error for our review.
II.
4
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING [MS.] D’AGOSTINO’S
PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF, FILED PURSUANT TO R.C.
[] 2953.21, WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AS PROVIDED BY
SAID STATUTE.
{¶7} Ms. D’Agostino argues that the trial court erred in denying her petition without
holding a hearing. Based on Ms. D’Agostino’s limited arguments, we do not agree.
{¶8} We begin by noting that it does not appear that Ms. D’Agostino challenges the
trial court’s conclusion that some of the arguments in her petition were barred by res judicata in
light of this Court’s opinion in her direct appeal. Accordingly, this opinion will not review those
issues.
{¶9} “This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to deny a post-conviction relief
petition for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Ross, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27180, 2014-Ohio-2038,
¶ 6. “Likewise, ‘[w]e review a trial court’s decision not to hold a hearing on a petition for post-
conviction relief for an abuse of discretion.’” Id., quoting State v. Chesrown, 9th Dist. Summit
No. 26336, 2014-Ohio-680, ¶ 7. “An abuse of discretion implies unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable conduct by the court.” Chesrown at ¶ 7, citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio
St.3d 217, 219 (1983).
{¶10} “R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a) permits a person who has been convicted of a criminal
offense to petition the court for post-conviction relief where ‘there was such a denial or
infringement of the person’s rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio
Constitution or the Constitution of the United States * * *.’” Ross at ¶ 7, quoting R.C.
2953.21(A)(1)(a). “If the trial court agrees, it may ‘vacate or set aside the judgment or sentence
or [ ] grant other appropriate relief.’” Ross at ¶ 7, quoting R.C. 2953.21(A)(1)(a). “Before
granting a hearing on a petition * * * , the court shall determine whether there are substantive
5
grounds for relief. In making such a determination, the court shall consider, in addition to the
petition, the supporting affidavits, and the documentary evidence, all the files and records
pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, including, but not limited to, the indictment,
the court’s journal entries, the journalized records of the clerk of the court, and the court
reporter’s transcript.” R.C. 2953.21(C). “Unless the petition and the files and records of the
case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on
the issues even if a direct appeal of the case is pending.” R.C. 2953.21(E).
{¶11} Thus, “[a] hearing is not automatically required for every petition for post-
conviction relief .” Chesrown at ¶ 8, quoting State v. Sales, 9th Dist. Summit No. 23498, 2007-
Ohio-4136, ¶ 7. “The trial court serves a gatekeeping function in the post[-]conviction relief
process. The gatekeeping function includes the trial court’s decision regarding the sufficiency of
the facts set forth by the petitioner and the credibility of the affidavits submitted.” (Internal
quotations and citations omitted.) Ross at ¶ 7. “[A] trial court properly denies a defendant’s
petition for post[-]conviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing where the petition, the
supporting affidavits, the documentary evidence, the files, and the records do not demonstrate
that petitioner set forth sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief.”
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999), paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶12} Ms. D’Agostino’s petition asserted she was entitled to relief based upon
ineffective assistance of counsel. “In evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, a
two-step process is used. 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.” (Internal
quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, ¶ 61.
6
“Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This
requires showing that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial *
* *.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) Id.On the issue of counsel’s ineffectiveness, the petitioner has the burden of proof
because in Ohio, a properly licensed attorney is presumed competent. In order to
overcome this presumption, the petitioner must submit sufficient operative facts
or evidentiary documents that demonstrate that the petitioner was prejudiced by
the ineffective assistance. To demonstrate prejudice, [t]he defendant must show
that there is a reasonable 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.
(Internal citations and quotations omitted.) Gondor at ¶ 62. Thus, “[b]efore a hearing is granted,
the petitioner bears the initial burden in a post-conviction proceeding to submit evidentiary
documents containing sufficient operative facts to demonstrate the lack of competent counsel and
also that the defense was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness.” State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio
St.2d 107, 111 (1980). “Broad assertions without a further demonstration of prejudice do not
warrant a hearing for all post-conviction petitions. General conclusory allegations to the effect
that a defendant has been denied effective assistance of counsel are inadequate as a matter of law
to impose an evidentiary hearing.” Id.{¶13} Ms. D’Agostino claimed in her petition that “she received ineffective assistance
of counsel due to the physical and mental difficulties that [trial counsel] experienced at the time
of trial.” The basis of this concern appears to stem from the fact that trial counsel requested a
continuance of the original trial date because trial counsel was recovering from a difficult
surgical child birth. The continuance was granted and nothing in the record reflects that trial
counsel requested any further continuances based upon any health issues. See also D’Agostino,
2014-Ohio-551, at ¶ 5-8. In her petition, Ms. D’Agostino asserted that, nonetheless, trial
counsel’s “physical and mental difficulties continued to be an impediment to her ability to render
7
effective [assistance] of counsel.” To support her contention, Ms. D’Agostino presented five
affidavits, each from a relative.
{¶14} Each of the affiants averred that trial counsel appeared nervous during trial. Some
of the affiants observed trial counsel’s hands shaking and trembling. The affiants also provided
observations about trial counsel’s appearance. Both Ms. D’Agostino’s sister and mother
observed that trial counsel’s “hair was falling out” in “gobs[,]” and that trial counsel appeared to
be suffering from an “undisclosed, unknown physical ailment.” Ms. D’Agostino’s sister also
averred that trial counsel’s dress and appearance indicated to her that “something was not right
with her.”
{¶15} In addition, several of the affiants indicated that a conversation with trial
counsel’s mother caused them concern. Ms. D’Agostino’s sister, cousin, and mother averred that
they sat near trial counsel’s mother who revealed that she was concerned about trial counsel
because “she had been sick.” Ms. D’Agostino’s sister, cousin, father, and mother indicated that
trial counsel’s mother told them that trial counsel had never tried a domestic violence case
before.
{¶16} The affiants who were also trial witnesses expressed concern over how they were
prepared for trial and with trial counsel’s preparation and performance. Ms. D’Agostino’s sister
and cousin averred that trial counsel’s associate prepared her for her testimony, but only spent
less than five minutes doing so. Ms. D’Agostino’s mother and father indicated that they had no
pretrial preparation for their testimony. Ms. D’Agostino’s cousin observed that, during breaks,
trial counsel would ask the family how she was doing; Ms. D’Agostino’s cousin found this
behavior odd and indicative of a lack of confidence. Both Ms. D’Agostino’s mother and father
averred that trial counsel made “few objections” and Ms. D’Agostino’s nephew, who was not a
8
witness, believed that trial counsel “did not mount a very active defense and * * * did not appear
to be fully prepared or have prepared the defense witnesses to testify.”
{¶17} We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that Ms.
D’Agostino failed to present sufficient grounds to demonstrate that any ailment of trial counsel
prejudiced Ms. D’Agostino. The record reflects that, during voir dire, trial counsel began by
informing the jury of her hand tremors. Specifically she stated, “I’m on a medication that makes
my hands shake. That’s why I’m nervous. If you see that happening, please don’t mind it.”
Thus, the affiants’ observations of nervousness and shaking hands are unsurprising and are
explained in the record. Moreover, there was evidence that trial counsel had ample opportunities
at trial to voice any concerns she had about proceeding or to request a continuance. Each time
the trial resumed following a recess, the trial court asked both counsel if they were both ready to
proceed. Each time, both counsel responded affirmatively. Additionally, following the close of
evidence, trial counsel indicated that she was ready to proceed to closing argument even though
the State indicated it needed more time to prepare.
{¶18} Even assuming that the affiants’ observations may have indicated that trial
counsel had some sort of ailment, or was recovering from some ailment, those observations do
not provide evidence that trial counsel was ineffective or that trial counsel’s deficient
performance prejudiced Ms. D’Agostino. See Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377, 2006-Ohio-6679, at
¶ 61-62. Ms. D’Agostino has pointed to nothing that would require that trial counsel be in
perfect health in order to render effective assistance of counsel.
{¶19} While several of the affiants indicated that they did not believe they received
adequate preparation for their testimony, they failed to indicate what additional testimony they
could have provided or how that would have benefited Ms. D’Agostino had they been better
9
prepared. Accordingly, Ms. D’Agostino has not demonstrated that any lack of preparation of
those witnesses prejudiced her defense. Further, the affiants’ feelings and general concerns
about trial counsel’s performance do not evidence specific incidents of deficient performance or
prejudice that resulted therefrom. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it
concluded that Ms. D’Agostino failed to state “sufficient grounds for her Petition based upon the
alleged undisclosed, unknown medical condition[.]”
{¶20} Ms. D’Agostino additionally argues that the affidavit of Dr. Eisenberg evidences
the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Dr. Eisenberg testified as the defense expert at trial.
He evaluated Ms. D’Agostino for battered woman’s syndrome and provided an opinion in his
report. In his report, he concluded that, assuming Ms. D’Agostino’s reports of her history were
accurate, it was his opinion that Ms. D’Agostino “was a victim of continued domestic violence
and was therefore a battered woman at the time of the alleged felonious assault[.]”
{¶21} In his affidavit submitted in support of Ms. D’Agostino’s petition, Dr. Eisenberg
averred that, as an expert, he was accustomed to a certain amount of pretrial preparation and that
such preparation did not occur. He indicated that he evaluated Ms. D’Agostino in December
2010, and prepared a report in February 2011, but only spoke to trial counsel briefly over lunch
the day of his testimony in October 2012. Dr. Eisenberg stated he placed phone calls to trial
counsel’s office that were never returned. However, he did acknowledge that trial counsel was
on maternity leave for part of that time.
{¶22} Dr. Eisenberg expressed concern with trial counsel’s examination of him at trial,
noting that it appeared to him that trial counsel had little experience or training in how to
examine an expert in forensic psychology. He found the State’s cross-examination to be more
skilled. He averred that trial counsel’s questioning, “was often confusing” and prevented him
10
from “clearly provid[ing] a coherent and logical explanation for [Ms.] D’Agostino’s conduct and
her diagnosis.” This “undermined [his] testimony and provided damaging avenues of inquiry for
the [p]rosecution on cross-examination.” Additionally, Dr. Eisenberg contended that trial
counsel failed to emphasize self-defense as a part of trial counsel’s theory of the case and that the
theory of self-defense should not have been “subsumed by the defense based upon Battered
Woman Syndrome.”
{¶23} While it is clear that Dr. Eisenberg was dissatisfied with the manner in which he
was prepared for trial and the way in which he was questioned at trial, he failed to indicate in his
affidavit what other testimony or information he could have provided at trial that would have
benefited the defense. The trial court found that Dr. Eisenberg’s testimony mirrored his expert
report, and, generally speaking, that conclusion is supported by the record before us.
{¶24} To the extent Dr. Eisenberg asserts that trial counsel should have focused more on
a theory of self-defense outside the context of battered woman’s syndrome, it is unclear what
more Dr. Eisenberg believes should have been done. Dr. Eisenberg’s report does not make a
finding as to whether Ms. D’Agostino acted in self-defense, instead indicating that “it is the trier
of fact who will determine whether or not her actions constituted self-defense.” Nonetheless, at
trial, Dr. Eisenberg did conclude that Ms. D’Agostino was a battered woman and that she
“suffered abuse from * * * [Mr.] Augustus[.] * * * That this was over an extended period of
time, and that on the date in question [he] believe[d] she was in a situation where she believed
that she was in danger of imminent harm and acted accordingly.” To this extent, his expert
opinion was placed squarely before the jury.
{¶25} Further, it appears that trial counsel at least attempted to impart to the jury that,
even if Ms. D’Agostino had fabricated the abuse and, thus, could not be classified as a battered
11
woman, she nonetheless might still have acted in self-defense. On cross-examination, the State
challenged Dr. Eisenberg’s findings that Ms. D’Agostino was a battered woman because his
findings were based almost entirely on Ms. D’Agostino’s own reporting. On redirect, trial
counsel asked if Dr. Eisenberg would still think Ms. D’Agostino was acting in self-defense even
if she could not be classified as a battered woman. Dr. Eisenberg responded that, “Well, that
goes right to the jury, but I certainly would think that that speaks to some of the elements of
imminent threat of harm to oneself regardless of whether she is a battered woman or not.”
{¶26} Finally, trial counsel in her closing argument repetitively discussed self-defense,
both in the context of battered woman’s syndrome and separately. Trial counsel argued that part
of the self-defense test was “met even without any evidence of Battered Woman Syndrome.
Even if she was never abused, any reasonable person would be in fear at that time. But it is
further bolstered because she did suffer from Battered Woman Syndrome.” Later in closing
argument, trial counsel stated that, “Now, I haven’t talked a whole lot about Battered Woman
Syndrome. I’m getting to the experts here, because I think this is a straight self-defense case. I
think it is pretty clear cut. Somebody is breaking into a door with a hammer, yelling that he is
going to kick your a**, I think it is pretty clear cut self-defense if you defend yourself, whether
he intended to do those things or not.” Given the foregoing, including the lack of specificity in
Dr. Eisenberg’s affidavit, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in determining
that a hearing was not warranted on Ms. D’Agostino’s petition. Ms. D’Agostino failed to supply
“sufficient operative facts to establish substantive grounds for relief.” Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d
279, at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶27} Ms. D’Agostino’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
III.
12
{¶28} Ms. D’Agostino’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Lorain
County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common
Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of
this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of
judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is
instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the
mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, P. J.
SCHAFER, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
MICHAEL J. DUFF, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
13
DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATASHA RUIZ GUERRIERI, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.