State v. Bean, 2008-G-2839 (2-13-2009)

2009 Ohio 682
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 13, 2009
DocketNo. 2008-G-2839.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 2009 Ohio 682 (State v. Bean, 2008-G-2839 (2-13-2009)) 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
State v. Bean, 2008-G-2839 (2-13-2009), 2009 Ohio 682 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

OPINION
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Edward A. Bean, appeals the Judgment of Conviction, rendered by the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to serve an aggregate prison term of sixteen years for crimes more fully described below. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below. *Page 2

{¶ 2} On August 14, 2007, Bean was indicted by the Geauga County Grand Jury on the following charges: Rape, a felony of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(c), Sexual Battery, a felony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2907.03(A)(2), Attempted Kidnapping, a felony of the second degree in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A), Attempted Abduction, a felony of the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 2923.02(A), Failure to Comply with an Order or Signal of a Police Officer, a felony of the third degree in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) and (C)(5)(a)(ii), Receiving Stolen Property, a felony of the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), Receiving Stolen Property, a felony of the fifth degree in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A), Grand Theft of a Motor Vehicle, a felony of the fourth degree in violation R.C. 2913.02(A)(2), Operation in Willful or Wanton Disregard of the Safety of Persons or Property, a minor misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 4511.20(A), and Driving Under Suspension, a misdemeanor of the first degree in violation of R.C. 4510.11(A).

{¶ 3} On January 8, 2008, Bean entered into a Plea Agreement whereby he pled guilty to Attempted Rape, a felony of the second degree in violation of 2923.02(A), and to Attempted Kidnapping, Failure to Comply with the Order or Signal of a Police Officer, and fourth-degree Receiving Stolen Property as described in the Indictment. The trial court granted the State leave to dismiss the remaining counts of the Indictment at the time of sentencing, pursuant to Crim. R. 48(A).

{¶ 4} On April 17, 2008, following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered Bean to serve a six-year term of imprisonment for Attempted Rape (including a mandatory class 2 driver's license suspension for a period of twenty years), a seven-year term of imprisonment for Attempted Kidnapping, a two-year term of imprisonment *Page 3 for Failure to Comply, and a one-year term of imprisonment for Receiving Stolen Property. The court ordered all sentences to be served consecutively with one another for an aggregate term of imprisonment of sixteen years. The court notified Bean of post-release control as required by R.C. 2929.19(B)(3). Finally, the court ordered Bean to pay court costs and restitution in the amount of $10,085.84 to Preston Motors.

{¶ 5} On April 28, 2008, the trial court entered judgment entry of sentence, captioned Judgment of Conviction. Bean timely appeals and raises the following assignments of error:

{¶ 6} "[1.] The appellant was denied the effective assistance of counsel as defense counsel failed to file a motion to separate charges and deprived appellant of the effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution."

{¶ 7} "[2.] The trial court erred when sentencing appellant to consecutive terms of imprisonment."

{¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, Bean argues he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel's failure to file a motion for severance pursuant to Crim. R. 14. Bean asserts that, in light of "the number of offenses and the nature of the charges" contained in the Indictment, "a trial on all counts together simply would have served to establish [the] bad character and criminal disposition of [the] appellant."

{¶ 9} By entering a plea of guilty, Bean has waived the right to challenge the effectiveness of counsel with respect to severance. "A guilty plea waives all appealable orders except for a challenge asserting that the defendant's guilty plea was not *Page 4 knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered." State v. Swank, 11th Dist. No. 2008-L-019, 2008-Ohio-6059, at ¶ 30 (citation omitted). "[A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process," precluding a criminal defendant from "rais[ing] independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea." State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269, 272, 1992-Ohio-130 (citation omitted). "[T]hus, a defendant, who admits his guilt, waives the right to challenge the propriety of any action taken by a trial court or trial counsel prior to that point in the proceedings unless it affected the knowing and voluntary character of the plea." State v. Madeline, 11th Dist. No. 2000-T-0156, 2002-Ohio-1332, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 1348, at *10-*11 (citation omitted); State v. Smith, 11th Dist. No. 2007-T-0076,2008-Ohio-1501, at ¶ 28 (citation omitted).

{¶ 10} Bean suggests that, but for the joinder of the offenses, he might not have entered the plea agreement. Bean relies upon the following statement made by counsel at sentencing, "I know there was some talk about whether [Bean] wanted to go forward with this." It is impossible to discern from the transcript anything specific about this "talk." There is no indication that the joinder of offenses in the indictment had any effect on Bean's decision to plea. At the time of the plea, a trial date had not been set and Bean had waived his right to a speedy trial. Bean's counsel at sentencing next advised the court that Bean "has maintained his guilt," "has not directed me to file any motions," and "is here ready to accept his punishment [as] required by the law."

{¶ 11} "The mere fact that, if not for the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant would not have entered a guilty plea is not sufficient to establish the requisite connection between guilty plea and the ineffective assistance. * * * Rather, *Page 5 ineffective assistance of trial counsel is found to have affected the validity of a guilty plea when it precluded a defendant from entering his plea knowingly and voluntarily." Madeline, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 1348, at *10 (citations omitted); Smith, 2008-Ohio-1501, at ¶ 27 (citation omitted).

{¶ 12} Assuming, arguendo, that the joinder of charges in some way affected Bean's decision to plead, there is no evidence in the record before us that Bean's plea was anything but knowing and voluntary.

{¶ 13}

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

Related

State v. Boone
2024 Ohio 6116 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Stephens
2024 Ohio 5653 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Lorraine
2024 Ohio 1343 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Kloeker
2021 Ohio 2534 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2021)
State v. Brown, 2008-L-152 (5-8-2009)
2009 Ohio 2189 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2009 Ohio 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bean-2008-g-2839-2-13-2009-ohioctapp-2009.