State v. Dangerfield

[Cite as State v. Dangerfield, 2014-Ohio-1638.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NOS. C-130301
C-130305
Plaintiff-Appellee, : TRIAL NO. B-110001
vs. : O P I N I O N.
CHRISTOPHER DANGERFIELD, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 18, 2014
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Bruce K. Hust, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
SYLVIA S. HENDON, Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Christopher Dangerfield pled guilty to
aggravated murder under R.C. 2903.01. The trial court sentenced Dangerfield to life
imprisonment, with parole eligibility after 25 years.
{¶2} Dangerfield appeals his conviction. He argues in his sole assignment
of error that his trial counsel had been ineffective because counsel had failed to
request a presentence investigation report. For a defendant to succeed on a claim of
ineffective assistance, he or she must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was
deficient, and that the defendant was prejudiced by this deficient performance.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674(1984). Counsel will only be considered deficient if his or her performance fell below
an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. at 688. And a defendant is only
prejudiced if it is demonstrated that the outcome of the proceedings would have been
different but for counsel’s performance. Id. at 694. As we review the record, this
court is highly deferential when judging counsel’s actions, and we begin with the
presumption that counsel’s behavior fell within the range of reasonable professional
assistance. Id. at 689.
{¶3} With this standard in mind, we conclude that Dangerfield’s counsel
was not ineffective for failing to request a presentence investigation report. This
court generally refrains from second guessing counsel’s trial strategy. And in this
case, the record is clear that counsel intentionally elected not to request a
presentence investigation report. When questioned by the trial court about the
report, Dangerfield’s counsel responded that “[w]e specifically did not request one.”
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Because Dangerfield can do no more than speculate that a presentence investigation
report would have been favorable to him, we cannot conclude that Dangerfield was
prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to request the report. See State v. Brown, 4th
Dist. Athens No. 09CA3, 2009-Ohio-5390, ¶ 48.
{¶4} Dangerfield has not shown that his trial counsel was ineffective. The
assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CUNNINGHAM, P.J., and DEWINE, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
3