[Cite as State v. Strodes, 2011-Ohio-1828.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF CLARK COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO :
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 10CA0051
vs. : T.C. CASE NO. 94CR0713
KEVIN T. STRODES : (Criminal Appeal from
Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
. . . . . . . . .
O P I N I O N
Rendered on the 15th day of April, 2011.
. . . . . . . . .
Andrew D. Wilson, Pros. Attorney; Atty, Reg. No. 0073767; Andrew
R. Picek, Asst. Pros. Attorney, Atty. Reg. No.0082121, P.O. Box
1608, 50 E. Columbia Street, Springfield, OH 45501
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
George A. Katchmer, Atty. Reg. No.0005031, 115 Brookside Drive,
Yellow Springs, OH 45387
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
. . . . . . . . .
GRADY, P.J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant, Kevin Strodes, appeals from the trial court’s
denial of his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea to
the offense of murder, R.C. 2903.02(B).
{¶ 2} Following his indictment on multiple charges, Strodes
entered a negotiated guilty plea to the offense of murder on May
2
2, 2005. The State dismissed the other charges. Sentencing was
scheduled for May 13, 2005.
{¶ 3} At the sentencing hearing, before his sentence was
imposed, Strodes moved pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his
guilty plea. The trial court heard evidence on the motion, which
included evidence that Strodes is afflicted with Attention Deficit
and Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) and as a result didn’t
understand the plea proceedings. The trial court denied Strodes’
motion to withdraw. The court entered its judgment of conviction
on May 16, 2005, sentencing Strodes to serve a term of incarceration
of from fifteen years to life.
{¶ 4} Strodes filed a notice of appeal from his conviction.
He argued that the trial court erred when it denied his motion
to withdraw, because his ADHD condition prevented him from entering
a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea. After
reviewing the record, we found that the record of the hearing on
his motion to withdraw refutes Strodes’ contention that he didn’t
understand what was going on when he entered his guilty plea.
State v. Strodes, Clark App. No. 05CA0070, 2006-Ohio-2335, ¶11.
We therefore overruled the error Strodes assigned and affirmed
his conviction. Id.
{¶ 5} On March 18, 2010, Strodes filed a second Crim.R. 32.1
motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion was predicated
3
on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Strodes argued
that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to review his
medical records, which would have informed counsel that Strodes
had not used medications necessary to manage his ADHD condition
before he entered his guilty plea. Had counsel done that,
according to Strodes, his counsel would have better been able to
explain the plea proceedings to Strodes and better able to inform
the court about Strodes’ ADHD condition and its effect.
{¶ 6} The trial court denied Strodes’ Crim.R. 32.1 condition,
without a hearing on April 14, 2010. Strodes filed a notice of
appeal from that order.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 7} “THE COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE APPELLANT A HEARING IN
THIS MATTER.”
{¶ 8} Counsel's performance will not be deemed ineffective
unless and until counsel's performance is proved to have fallen
below an objective standard of reasonable representation and, in
addition, prejudice arose from counsel's performance.
Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052,
80 L.Ed.2d 674. To show that a defendant has been prejudiced by
counsel’s deficient performance, the defendant must affirmatively
demonstrate to a reasonable probability that were it not for
counsel’s errors, the result of the trial would have been different.
4
Id., State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136.
{¶ 9} Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] point or a fact
which was actually and directly in issue in a former action and
was there passed upon and determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction may not be drawn in question in any future action
between the same parties or their privies, whether the cause of
action in the two actions be identical or different.” Norwood
v. McDonald (1943), 142 Ohio St.299, paragraph three of the Syllabus
by the Court.
{¶ 10} In the prior appeal, we found that Strodes’ ADHD
condition did not prevent him from entering a knowing, intelligent,
and voluntary guilty plea. Our finding concerning that fact
precludes a showing that Strodes was prejudiced by his counsel’s
alleged failure to obtain and review Strodes’ medical records
concerning his ADHD condition. Absent a showing that the outcome
of the proceeding in which the defective performance by counsel
took place would have been different, but for the defect alleged,
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not shown.
Strickland; Bradley.
{¶ 11} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of
the trial court will be affirmed.
5
DONOVAN, J. And HALL, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Andrew R. Picek, Esq.
George A. Katchmer, Esq.
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter
State v. Strodes
Combined Opinion