State v. Leek, Unpublished Decision (7-29-1999)
State v. Leek, Unpublished Decision (7-29-1999)
Opinion of the Court
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FAILING TO HOLD A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO VACATE HIS PLEA IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.
II. APPELLANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE
I , SECTION10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THESIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
Finding appellant's assignments of error to lack merit, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Trial commenced on September 23, 1997. Prior to the completion of the prosecution's case-in-chief, appellant accepted a plea agreement. On September 25, 1997, appellant entered a plea of guilty to-felonious assault and aggravated burglary as charged in the indictment. The trial court then sentenced appellant to concurrent prison terms of eight years on each count of the indictment, to be served consecutive to a previously imposed prison sentence.
On March 24, 1998, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In a journal entry filed on April 15, 1998, the trial court denied appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On the same date, appellant filed pro se the underlying notice of appeal and motion, to file a delayed appeal from the original judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court.
On May 15, 1998, appellant's attorney filed an appeal from the trial court's order denying appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This court dismissed that appeal sua sponte for failure to file the record.
On April 15, 1998, appellant filed a notice of appeal and a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal from the original judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court on September 30, 1997. Appellant's notice of appeal failed to challenge the journal entry dated April 15, 1998, wherein the trial court denied appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.1
This court has consistently held that an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a judgment or order which is not designated in the appellant's notice of appeal. See Parks v.Baltimore Ohio R.R. (1991),
Based upon the foregoing, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the order denying appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant's first assignment of error is dismissed.
The crux of appellant's argument is his purported plea agreement with the prosecution whereby appellant would have been sentenced to a prison term of five years. After appellant entered his guilty plea, the prosecutor allegedly reneged on the purported plea agreement and recommended to the trial court that it give appellant "a substantial sentence that would even come close to the maximum allowed under law." The trial court then sentenced appellant to two concurrent eight-year prison terms.
Appellant contends that his trial counsel's inaction during his guilty plea and sentencing hearing, viz., the failure of his trial counsel to object or otherwise mention the purported plea agreement, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel upon entry of a guilty plea, a defendant must meet the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984),
The burden is on the defendant to prove ineffectiveness of counsel. State v. McNeill (1998),
Under these circumstances, appellant has failed to support his claim that his trial counsel's performance during his guilty plea and sentencing hearing constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Court to carry this judgment into execution. The Defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
TERRENCE O'DONNELL, P.J. and JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. CONCUR.
_______________________________ LEO M. SPELLACY JUDGE
THE COURT: Have any threats or promises been made to you in order to induce you into entering this plea * * * THE COURT: Now, Mr. Leek, I could give you eight years for this case that you just plead guilty on? MR. LEEK: I understand that.MR. LEEK: No.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.