In Matter of Clinkscale, 07-Ma-23 (2-21-2008)

2008 Ohio 748
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 21, 2008
DocketNo. 07-MA-23.
StatusPublished

This text of 2008 Ohio 748 (In Matter of Clinkscale, 07-Ma-23 (2-21-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Matter of Clinkscale, 07-Ma-23 (2-21-2008), 2008 Ohio 748 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

OPINION *Page 2
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Lajuan Clinkscale, appeals from a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, Juvenile Division judgment adjudicating him a delinquent child for committing an act which would be felonious assault if committed by an adult after entering a plea of admission to the charge.

{¶ 2} On October 18, 2006, a complaint was filed against appellant alleging that he was a delinquent child for committing an act that would be attempted murder if committed by an adult, a first-degree felony, with a firearm specification. Appellant (d.o.b. 2/4/90) was 16 years old at the time.

{¶ 3} Appellant entered a plea of denial to the charges. The court appointed counsel and a guardian ad litem for appellant. Plaintiff-appellee, the State of Ohio, filed a motion to relinquish jurisdiction to the general division of the common pleas court and have appellant tried as an adult.

{¶ 4} A magistrate held an adjudication and disposition hearing on December 18, 2006. At the hearing, appellee moved to reduce the charge against appellant from attempted murder to felonious assault, a second-degree felony. In addition, it appears appellee withdrew its motion to have appellant bound over to the general division of the common pleas court. Appellant then entered a plea of admission to the reduced charge and the accompanying firearm specification. Additionally, as part of appellant's plea deal, appellant agreed to cooperate in the prosecution of his mother, Monique Clinkscale, who also was allegedly involved in the crime.

{¶ 5} The magistrate accepted appellant's plea and adjudicated him a delinquent child. Appellant waived his right to a separate disposition hearing. So the magistrate moved on with disposition. On the felonious assault charge, the magistrate ordered that appellant be committed to the custody of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) for institutionalization for a minimum period of 12 months and a maximum period not to exceed appellant's 21st birthday. On the firearm specification, the magistrate ordered that appellant be committed to ODYS's custody for a mandatory 36-month period, to be served prior to and consecutive to the commitment on the felonious assault charge. The trial court approved the *Page 3 magistrate's decision and entered judgment accordingly.

{¶ 6} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on February 1, 2007.

{¶ 7} Appellant raises a single assignment of error, which states:

{¶ 8} "THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, JUVENILE DIVISION, ERRED IN CONVICTING THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL THROUGHOUT HIS DEFENSE."

{¶ 9} Appellant, now represented by new counsel, argues that his trial counsel was ineffective. Appellant raises various allegations such as counsel raised no defense theory, conducted no investigation, deceived and bullied him, coerced him to make a proffer against his own mother, and made no argument in mitigation of sentence.

{¶ 10} In support of his argument, appellant directs this court to consider numerous exhibits that are beyond the scope of the record including: (1) a copy of a transcript where appellant gave a statement to the state regarding his mother's involvement in the crime; (2) a copy of a civil protection order against Travis Donaldson, who was present at the scene of the shooting, ordering him to stay away from appellant's mother; (3) two letters from appellant to his appellate counsel, one detailing his version of what happened the day of the crime and the other describing how his trial counsel bullied him into accepting the plea deal; (4) an unsworn statement from an inmate/witness describing what happened the day of the crime; and (5) a copy of a transcript of appellant's adjudication/disposition hearing, which was never filed with the trial court or this court. In fact, appellant's entire argument relies on evidence de hors the record.

{¶ 11} First, we must address the transcript issue. Attached to appellant's brief is a copy of the transcript from his adjudication/disposition hearing. However, this transcript was never filed in the trial court, nor was it filed with this court. On appellant's praecipe, his counsel indicates that no transcript is necessary because it was already filed in the trial court. This is not true. There is no indication on the *Page 4 docket that the transcript was ever filed in the trial court. Appellant's counsel may have been confused because Attorney Paul Conn, counsel for appellant's mother in her criminal case, requested a copy of the transcript at his own expense. The trial court entered judgment granting his request. However, there is no indication on the docket that this transcript was ever filed with the trial court, nor does any reason exist why it would have been filed in the trial court.

{¶ 12} It is the appellant's duty to transmit the record on appeal, including the transcript necessary for the determination of the appeal in accordance with App.R. 9(B). App.R. 10(A). If no transcript is available, then it is appellant's duty to present this court with one of the transcript substitutes as provided for in App.R. 9(C). App.R. 9(B).

{¶ 13} Appellant has not filed a properly certified transcript or transcript substitute. Instead, he has only attached a copy of the transcript to his brief. However, the state has not objected to this transcript copy and, in fact, references it in its brief. Thus, we too will consider it despite appellant's non-compliance with App.R. 9 and 10.

{¶ 14} After reviewing the transcript, it becomes apparent that there is no evidence in the record or in the transcript to support appellant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant argues that his counsel was ineffective because counsel did not give a statement to the court in support of a lenient sentence. However, that is simply not true. Appellant's counsel brought to the court's attention that appellant had never been in trouble with the juvenile court system before. (Tr. 20). He also pointed out that appellant's mother was involved in this crime and that she may have influenced appellant to some extent to commit the crime. (Tr. 21). Additionally, counsel noted that appellant cooperated with the state in the prosecution of his mother even though it was very hard to give a statement against his own mother. (Tr. 21-22). All of these statements were in mitigation of appellant's sentence.

{¶ 15} To prove an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, the *Page 5 appellant must satisfy a two-prong test. First, appellant must establish that counsel's performance has fallen below an objective standard of reasonable representation. Strickland v. Washington (1984),466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; State v. Bradley (1989),42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373, paragraph two of the syllabus. Second, appellant must demonstrate that he was prejudiced by counsel's performance. Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
State v. Cooperrider
448 N.E.2d 452 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Bradley
538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1989)
State v. Calhoun
714 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2008 Ohio 748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-matter-of-clinkscale-07-ma-23-2-21-2008-ohioctapp-2008.