State v. Lampley

Ohio Court of Appeals

State v. Lampley

2012 Ohio 4071

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 5, 2012

Docket10CA30

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2012 Ohio 4071 (State v. Lampley) 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. Lampley, 2012 Ohio 4071 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lampley, 2012-Ohio-4071.]

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 10CA30 THOMAS LAMPLEY

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from Richland County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 09-CR-650D

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 5, 2012

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

JAMES J. MAYER, JR. OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER PROSECUTING ATTORNEY MELISSA M. PRENDERGAST RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO Assistant State Public Defender 250 East Broad Street, Suite 1400 BY: JILL M. COCHRAN Columbus, Ohio 43215 Assistant Richland County Prosecutor 38 South Park Street Mansfield, Ohio 44902 Richland County, Case No. 10CA30 2

Hoffman, P.J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Thomas Lampley appeals his conviction entered by

the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On August 28, 2009, Appellant was employed at the Mary McLeod

Bethune Center (“MBCC”) owned by his wife. On that day, Appellant and his wife

became involved in an argument, during which Appellant operated a vehicle in the

MBCC parking lot coming close to and almost hitting LaShona Bronson who was also

an employee of MBCC and an acquaintance of Appellant. A dispute then arose between

Bronson and Appellant as to how close Appellant was to hitting her, and Appellant

called Bronson a “bitch.” Bronson telephoned her husband, David Jermain Bronson, aka

J.B. Bronson. She then told Appellant “We going to have somebody to take care of you”

and “We got something for you.” J.B. subsequently came to the parking lot, but

Appellant had already left the scene.

{¶3} When Appellant returned to the MBCC parking lot, he encountered

LaShona Bronson and her husband, J.B., who approached Appellant at the vehicle

Appellant was driving. An altercation ensued. Appellant maintains J.B. approached the

vehicle and began striking Appellant through the open window. J.B.'s friend, Danny

McClain, had accompanied J.B. to the parking lot, and was outside the vehicle on the

driver's side. Appellant accessed a firearm stored in the MBCC's van, and used the

firearm to shoot and fatally wound J.B.

{¶4} Appellant was indicted by the Richland County Grand Jury on four counts:

murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), with a firearm specification; murder, in violation Richland County, Case No. 10CA30 3

of R.C. 2903.02(B), with a firearm specification; having a weapon under disability, in

violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2); and tampering with evidence, in violation of R.C.

2921.12(A)(1).

{¶5} A jury trial commenced on February 23, 2010, and the jury returned a

verdict of guilty on all four counts. The jury also returned a finding of guilt on the firearm

specifications.

{¶6} The trial court imposed a sentence of fifteen years to life imprisonment on

count one, merging counts one and two. The court also imposed a five year sentence

on count three and a two year sentence on count four, to be served consecutively. An

additional three year mandatory consecutive prison sentence was imposed for the

firearm specifications, for a total sentence of twenty-five years to life.

{¶7} On March 10, 2010, Appellant filed a notice of appeal with this court in

Case No. 10–CA–30. Subsequently, on April 26, 2010, Appellant filed a petition to

vacate or set aside his sentence in the trial court.

{¶8} On August 10, 2010, the trial court overruled Appellant's petition for post-

conviction relief. On October 29, 2010, this Court dismissed Appellant's direct appeal for

failure to prosecute because Appellant failed to submit a brief.

{¶9} Appellant appealed the trial court's August 10, 2010 denial of his motion

for post-conviction relief. Via Judgment Entry of March 9, 2011, this Court affirmed the

trial court's denial of the motion for post-conviction relief. State v. Lampley, Richland

App. No. 10CA30, 2011-Ohio-3814.

{¶10} On December 9, 2011, this Court granted Appellant's application to

reopen the direct appeal finding Appellant's appellate counsel was ineffective in failing Richland County, Case No. 10CA30 4

to raise a potentially meritorious claim. This Court reopened Appellant's appeal for the

limited purpose of considering whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request

a jury instruction on the Castle Doctrine, as codified in R.C. 2901.05 and R.C. 2901.09.

{¶11} Appellant assigns as error:

{¶12} “I. TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ARGUING COMMON-

LAW SELF-DEFENSE AND FOR FAILING TO REQUEST THAT THE JURY BE

INSTRUCTED ON THE CASTLE DOCTRINE, AS CODIFIED IN R.C. 2901.05 AND

R.C. 2901.09. SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND

SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION; STRICKLAND V.

WASHINGTON, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

{¶13} “II. APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO

RAISE A MERITORIOUS ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IN MR. LAMPLEY’S DIRECT

APPEAL OF RIGHT. SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION AND SECTION 10, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION;

EVITTS V. LUCEY, 469 U.S. 387 (1985).”

I. and II.

{¶14} Appellant's assigned errors raise common and interrelated issues;

therefore, we will address the arguments together.

{¶15} Our standard of review for ineffective assistance claims is set forth in

Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. Ohio

adopted this standard in the case of State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538

N.E.2d 373. These cases require a two-pronged analysis: First, we must determine

whether counsel's assistance was ineffective; whether counsel's performance fell below Richland County, Case No. 10CA30 5

an objective standard of reasonable representation and was violative of any of his

essential duties to the client. If we find ineffective assistance of counsel, we must then

determine whether or not the defense was actually prejudiced by counsel's

ineffectiveness such that the reliability of the outcome of the trial is suspect. This

requires a showing that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's

unprofessional error, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Id. Trial counsel

is entitled to a strong presumption that all decisions fall within the wide range of

reasonable professional assistance. State v. Sallie (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 673, 675, 693

N.E.2d 267.

{¶16} Ohio Revised Code section 2901.05(B)(1) provides,

{¶17} "Subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person is presumed to have

acted in self defense or defense of another when using defensive force that is intended

or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if the person against whom the

defensive force is used is in the process of unlawfully and without privilege to do so

entering, or has unlawfully and without privilege to do so entered, the residence or

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