Court Opinion

ID: 9960259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 20:08:47.645394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:19.662287
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Williams, 2024-Ohio-1424.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                     RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                                  :     JUDGES:
                                               :     Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                     :     Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
                                               :     Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                           :
                                               :
ALVIN WILLIAMS                                 :     Case No. 2023-CA-49
                                               :
        Defendant-Appellant                    :     OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                     Pleas, Case No. 2022-CR-0309 N

JUDGMENT:                                            Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                    April 12, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                               For Defendant-Appellant

JODIE SCHUMACHER                                     TODD W. BARSTOW
38 South Park Street                                 261 West Johnstown Road
Second Floor                                         Suite 204
Mansfield, OH 44902                                  Columbus, OH 43230
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-49                                                    2

King, J.

       {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Alvin Williams, appeals the July 5, 2023 judgment

entry of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, denying his motion to

dismiss, as well as the August 22, 2023 sentencing entry. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state

of Ohio. We affirm the trial court.

                         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶ 2} On April 30, 2022, Williams was arrested on various charges stemming from

an incident where he was involved in a hit-skip motor vehicle accident, led officers on a

high-speed chase, crashed his motor vehicle, and ran from the scene.                Upon

apprehension, he refused field sobriety testing; blood alcohol testing was conducted

revealing the presence of THC in his system. A firearm was found near Williams's vehicle

and ammunition was found in the trunk. Williams spent five days in jail and was then

released on a personal recognizance bond.

       {¶ 3} On August 18, 2022, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted Williams on

two counts of failure to comply with an order or signal of a peace officer in violation of

R.C. 2921.331, two counts of having weapons under disability in violation of R.C.

2923.13, and three counts of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of

alcohol and/or a drug of abuse and/or a listed controlled substance in violation of R.C.

4511.19. Said charges stemmed from the incident on April 30, 2022.

       {¶ 4} Williams failed to appear for his October 25, 2022 arraignment; he was

arrested and arraigned on January 25, 2023.
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-49                                                     3

       {¶ 5} On June 1, 2023, Williams filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds.

The state responded, setting forth all of the days tolled because of Williams's actions. By

judgment entry filed July 5, 2023, the trial court denied the motion.

       {¶ 6} On August 14, 2023, Williams pled guilty to five of the seven counts. The

remaining two counts were dismissed. By sentencing entry filed August 22, 2023, the

trial court sentenced Williams to an aggregate term of twenty-four months in prison.

       {¶ 7} Williams filed an appeal with the following assignment of error:

                                             I

       {¶ 8} "APPELLANT'S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, THEREBY

DENYING HIM HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS

GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO CONSTITUTIONS."

                                             I

       {¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Williams claims he was denied the effective

assistance of counsel because his counsel had him plead guilty instead of no contest in

order to preserve any appellate issues. Specifically, Williams claims he is precluded from

challenging violations of his speedy trial rights due to his counsel's deficiency. We

disagree with Williams's arguments.

       {¶ 10} The state was required to bring Williams to trial within two hundred seventy

days after his arrest or ninety days if he was in jail. R.C. 2945.71(C)(2) and (E).

       {¶ 11} On June 1, 2023, Williams filed a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds.

He argued he was originally arrested on April 30, 2022, and spent five days in jail which

accounted for fifteen days for speedy trial purposes; he was then released on a personal

recognizance bond. He argued afterwards, a "secret" indictment was filed against him
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-49                                                       4

with a warrant for his arrest on August 18, 2022, and the state made no effort to serve

him with the indictment or apprehend him on the outstanding arrest warrant. Williams

was arrested on January 25, 2023, after he turned himself in to police. He was unable to

post bond and remained in jail. By his calculation, at the time of the filing of the motion,

he had accrued 421 days towards the 270-day limit.

       {¶ 12} The state filed a response motion on June 7, 2023, setting forth all of the

tolling time attributable to Williams in his case. The state argued after Williams was

indicted on August 18, 2022, he failed to appear for his scheduled arraignment on October

25, 2022, which he was made aware of when he was released on his personal

recognizance bond; thus, any time between October 25, 2022, and January 25, 2023,

was caused by Williams and should not be counted.

       {¶ 13} By judgment entry filed July 5, 2023, the trial court denied Williams's motion,

finding although he was not served with the August 18, 2022 warrant, he would have been

served with it on October 25, 2022, had he appeared for his arraignment. The trial court

stated:

                The Court does not see fit to grant defendant credit for time from the

       date of arraignment, until he turned himself in, due to defendant's own

       failure to adhere to his bond requirements. If the Court would do so, it would

       note, that every defendant would fail to appear at that time and attempt to

       avoid the Court in order to get over the 270 day requirements as to speedy

       trial.
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-49                                                    5

      {¶ 14} The trial court calculated all the tolling time and found Williams's time was

261 days and thus his speedy trial rights were not violated.

      {¶ 15} On August 14, 2023, Williams pled guilty to five of seven counts. "The

general view is that where an accused enters a plea of guilty he waives his right to raise

the denial of his right to a speedy trial on appeal." Village of Montpelier v. Greeno, 25

Ohio St.3d 170, 170, 495 N.E.2d 581 (1986); Accord State v. Lichtenwalter, 5th Dist.

Guernsey Nos. 20CA000013 and 20CA000023, 2021-Ohio-1394, ¶ 35. Thus, Williams

now argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him to plead "no contest" and

preserve for appellate review any violations of his speedy trial rights. He does not argue

that his guilty plea was not given knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, only that he

should have pled no contest instead. He also does not argue he would not have pled

guilty and would have proceeded to trial.

      {¶ 16} The standard this issue must be measured against is set out in State v.

Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), paragraphs two and three of the

syllabus. Williams must establish the following:

             2. Counsel's performance will not be deemed ineffective unless and

      until counsel's performance is proved to have fallen below an objective

      standard of reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises

      from counsel's performance. (State v. Lytle [1976], 48 Ohio St.2d 391, 2

      O.O.3d 495, 358 N.E.2d 623; Strickland v. Washington [1984], 466 U.S.

      668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, followed.)
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-49                                                       6

              3. To show that a defendant has been prejudiced by counsel's

       deficient performance, the defendant must prove that there exists a

       reasonable probability that, were it not for counsel's errors, the result of the

       trial would have been different.

       {¶ 17} "Reasonable probability" is "a probability sufficient to undermine confidence

in the outcome." Strickland at 694.

       {¶ 18} This court must accord deference to defense counsel's strategic choices

made during trial and "requires us to eliminate the distorting effect of hindsight." State v.

Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 388, 513 N.E.2d 754 (1987). A reviewing "court must indulge a

strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable

professional assistance." Strickland at 689.

       {¶ 19} As stated by our colleagues from the Second District in State v. Frazier, 2d

Dist. Montgomery Nos. 26495 and 26496, 2016-Ohio-727, ¶ 82:

              We have required a defendant to establish the following when

       arguing that counsel was ineffective for allowing the defendant to plead

       guilty, as opposed to no contest: (1) the State would have agreed to a no-

       contest plea on the same terms; (2) counsel failed to advise the defendant

       that a no-contest plea, in contradistinction to a guilty plea, would preserve

       the pretrial issue for appeal; and (3) had defendant been so advised, the

       defendant would have rejected the plea offer.
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-49                                                   7

Accord, State v. Conley, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-16-10, 2016-Ohio-8408, ¶ 12.

      {¶ 20} The record fails to establish any of these facts.

      {¶ 21} There is no evidence to suggest the state would have agreed to a no contest

plea on the same terms. During the plea hearing, the prosecutor indicated Williams "will

plead as charged" (to five of seven counts) and receive two years, a little more than the

mandatory minimum. August 14, 2023 T. at 5-6.

      {¶ 22} There is no evidence of whether defense counsel failed to advise Williams

on the distinction between a guilty plea and a no contest plea. Williams could have been

so advised and yet opted to plead guilty. He had trouble taking advice from his former

counsel. See April 24, 2023 Motion to Withdraw Hearing Transcript. During the plea

hearing, Williams agreed he was satisfied with the help and advice he received and his

new counsel went over his plea agreement paperwork with him. August 14, 2023 T. at

21. Williams did not have any questions regarding the paperwork or the proceedings. Id.

      {¶ 23} There is no evidence that had Williams been advised of the difference

between a guilty plea and a no contest plea he would have rejected the plea deal. He

has not made that assertion. He was facing a maximum sentence of one hundred eighty

months in prison on seven counts. Instead, he received twenty-four months in prison on

five counts. Defense counsel negotiated a fraction of what Williams could have been

sentenced to. Williams received substantial consideration for his guilty plea.

      {¶ 24} Williams has not met any criteria to establish ineffective assistance of

counsel in this case.
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-49                                              8

      {¶ 25} Upon review, we do not find any deficiency by defense counsel and thus,

we do not find ineffective assistance of counsel.

      {¶ 26} The sole assignment of error is denied.
Richland County, Case No. 2023-CA-49                                            9

      {¶ 27} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio is

hereby affirmed.

By King, J.

Delaney, P.J. and

Hoffman, J. concur.