State v. Crockett

2015 Ohio 300

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 28, 2015
• Docket: 100923
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Crockett, 2015-Ohio-300.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100923

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs.

TAI-RON R. CROCKETT

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

JUDGMENT: APPLICATION DENIED

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-13-574520 Application for Reopening Motion No. 480960

BEFORE: Kilbane, J., S. Gallagher, P.J., and Rocco, J.

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 28, 2015 APPELLANT

Tai-Ron R. Crockett, pro se Inmate No. 644-703 501 Thompson Road P.O. Box 8000 Conneaut, Ohio 44030

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Eric L. Foster Andrew J. Santoli Assistant County Prosecutors The Justice Center - 9th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J.:

{¶1} In State v. Crockett, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-13-574520, the applicant, Tai-Ron

Crockett, pled guilty to murder with a three-year firearm specification and felonious assault, and

he was sentenced on those counts. This court affirmed that judgment in State v. Crockett, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100923, 2014-Ohio-4576.

{¶2} Crockett has filed a timely application for reopening. Appellant argues that his

appellate counsel was allegedly ineffective for not asserting that the trial court failed to advise

him of his constitutional right to confront his accusers prior to accepting his guilty pleas. The

state has opposed the application to reopen.

{¶3} In State v. Spivey, 84 Ohio St.3d 24, 1998-Ohio-704, 701 N.E.2d 696, the

Supreme Court specified the proof required of an applicant as follows:

[T]he two-prong analysis found in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668,

104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, is the appropriate standard to assess a defense

request for reopening under App.R. 26(B)(5). [Applicant] must prove that his

counsel were deficient for failing to raise the issues he now presents, as well as

showing that had he presented those claims on appeal, there was a “reasonable

probability” that he would have been successful. Thus [applicant] bears the

burden of establishing that there was a “genuine issue” as to whether he has a

“colorable claim” of ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.

Id. at 25. The applicant must demonstrate that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the

deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland. {¶4} The transcript that Crockett has attached to his application demonstrates that the

trial court did advise him of his right to confront witnesses, which is set forth in the following

excerpt:

THE COURT: Now, at the time of the trial, the State of Ohio has the burden of proving your guilty by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The way they would do that, they would call witnesses to the stand here. When they did that, your attorneys would have the opportunity to question or cross-examine those witnesses.

Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You also have the right to call witnesses to testify in your behalf. And if those folks didn’t want to come to court, [defense counsel] could ask me to go send the sheriffs out to grab those folks and bring them here and make them testify for you.

{¶5} This court has previously held that “[b]y advising [a defendant] that his attorneys

could cross-examine each one of the state’s witnesses, the trial court properly conveyed [the right

to confront ones accusers] to [the defendant].” State v. Hanson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99362,

2013-Ohio-3916, ¶ 20, citing State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88464, 2008-Ohio-446;

see also State v. Millhouse, Jr., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79910, 2002-Ohio-2255, ¶ 47 (“the right

to confront witnesses against a defendant is done by the process of cross-examination of

witnesses called by the state to testify against the accused,” and therefore, a record that reflects

the trial court informed the defendant that he had the right to cross-examine witnesses prior to

accepting a guilty plea “supports the conclusion that the court explained and [the defendant]

knew he would waive the right to confront witnesses against him by entering his guilty plea.”) {¶6} Applicant’s sole proposed assignment of error is contradicted by the record and

does not establish a colorable claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

{¶7} Crockett has not met the standard for reopening. Accordingly, the application for

reopening is denied.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, JUDGE

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, P.J., and KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR