[Cite as State v. Macksyn, 2013-Ohio-1649.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2012CA00140
DELANOR L. MACKSYN
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2011CR1494
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 22, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN D. FERRERO, BERNARD L. HUNT
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, 2395 McGinty Rd NW
STARK COUNTY, OHIO North Canton, Ohio 44720
BY: KATHLEEN O. TATARSKY
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Section
110 Central Plaza, South – Suite 510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00140 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Delanor Lamar Macksyn appeals his conviction and
sentence entered by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the
state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} At all times pertinent herein, A.L. a fifteen year-old female, lived with her
mother and Appellant. On June 9, 2011, A.L. informed her mother she planned to run
away, disclosing to her mother Appellant had had sex with her. A.L.'s mother did not
believe her, but took her to Affinity Medical Center where she was seen and told to go to
Akron Children's Hospital for a SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) nurse
examination. A.L.'s mother then left the hospital subsequently against medical advice.
The hospital subsequently reported the incident to Child Protection Services and the
Canton Police Department.
{¶3} As a result of a follow up call from Child Protection Services, A.L.'s mother
took her to the Children's Network the following day. A.L. was interviewed and
physically examined. A.L., then in the ninth grade, disclosed Appellant had engaged in
sexual conduct with her since eighth grade. She stated he would ejaculate and wipe
himself off.
{¶4} As a result of A.L.’s statements, samples were taken of A.L.'s fingernail
clippings, blood, saliva, specimens from her vagina, perianal and anal area, the inside
of both cheeks, a strand of head hair and pubic hair and a sexual assault kit was
developed. The kit was then turned over to the Stark County Crime Laboratory.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00140 3
{¶5} As a result of the allegations, the residence where Appellant and A.L. lived
was searched. The comforter and two sheets were taken from A.L.'s bed, black shorts,
and some paper towels. A DNA standard was also obtained from Appellant.
{¶6} On July 13, 2011, Michelle Foster of the Stark County Crime Laboratory
tested the sexual assault kit and determined the sperm present on the vaginal swab
taken from A.L. matched Appellant's DNA profile to a probability of 1 in 2.675 sextillion,
a very rare profile. Foster opined with the exception of an identical twin, Appellant was
the source of the semen from the vaginal swabs in A.L.'s sexual assault kit. The sperm
from the anal-perianal swabs matched Appellant's DNA source to a probability of 1 in
31.3 quadrillion, again a rare profile. Foster further opined the sperm bands were intact,
and sex was recent.
{¶7} Appellant was indicted by the Stark County Grand Jury on five counts of
unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, a violation of R.C. 2907.04(A)(B)(3). The State
subsequently dismissed two counts finding the evidence only supported three incidents
of sexual conduct. Following a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of the charges. The
trial court sentenced Appellant to sixty months in prison on each of the three counts to
be served consecutively for a total of 180 months in prison or fifteen years. The trial
court further designated Appellant a Tier II sexual offender.
{¶8} Appellant now appeals, assigning as error,
{¶9} “I. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
HIS TRIAL COUNSEL WHEN COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT AND REQUEST A
HEARING ON THE INTERVIEW HELD AT THE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER BY C.J.
CROSS AS MANDATED BY STATE V. ARNOLD.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00140 4
{¶10} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED APPELLANT’S RULE
29, MOTION TO DISMISS THE INCIDENTS OF CHRISTMAS 2010 AND SPRING OF
2011.”
I.
{¶11} In the first assignment of error, Appellant asserts he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel because his counsel failed to object to and request a
hearing on the victim’s interview conducted at the child advocacy center, the Children’s
Network.
{¶12} A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a two-prong analysis.
The first inquiry is whether counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonable representation involving a substantial violation of any of defense counsel's
essential duties to appellant. The second prong is whether the appellant was prejudiced
by counsel's ineffectiveness. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052
(1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989).
{¶13} In order to warrant a finding that trial counsel was ineffective, the petitioner
must meet both the deficient performance and prejudice prongs of Strickland and
Bradley. Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 129 S.Ct. 1411, 1419, 173 L.Ed.2d
251(2009).
{¶14} To show deficient performance, appellant must establish that “counsel's
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S.
at 688, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious
that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth
Amendment. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. Counsel also has a duty to
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00140 5
bring to bear such skill and knowledge as will render the trial a reliable adversarial
testing process. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052 at 2065.
{¶15} Thus, a court deciding an ineffectiveness claim must judge the
reasonableness of counsel's challenged conduct on the facts of the particular case,
viewed as of the time of counsel's conduct. A convicted defendant making a claim of
ineffective assistance must identify the acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not
to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment. The court must then
determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the identified acts or omissions
were outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance. In making that
determination, the court should keep in mind counsel's function, as elaborated in
prevailing professional norms, is to make the adversarial testing process work in the
particular case. At the same time, the court should recognize counsel is strongly
presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in
the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Strickland 466 U.S. 668 at 689,104
S.Ct. at 2064.
{¶16} In light of “the variety of circumstances faced by defense counsel [and] the
range of legitimate decisions regarding how best to represent a criminal defendant,” the
performance inquiry necessarily turns on “whether counsel's assistance was reasonable
considering all the circumstances.” Strickland, 466 U.S. 668 at 689,104 S.Ct. at 2064.
At all points, “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential.”
Strickland, 466 U.S. 668 at 689,104 S.Ct. at 2064.
{¶17} An appellant must further demonstrate he suffered prejudice from his
counsel's performance. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 (“An error by counsel, even if
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00140 6
professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal
proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment”). To establish prejudice, “[t]he
defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A
reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the
outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. To prevail on his ineffective-assistance claim,
appellant must show, therefore, that there is a “reasonable probability” that the trier of
fact would not have found him guilty.
{¶18} Appellant maintains his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request a
hearing to determine if the victim interview was primarily forensic in nature; rather than
for the purpose of medical diagnosis, pursuant to State v. Arnold (2010), 126 Ohio St.3d
290, 2010-Ohio-2742. Second, he asserts counsel failed to subpoena C.J. Cross, the
social worker who conducted the interview. Third, he claims counsel failed to object to
the lack of a tape or transcript of the interview.
{¶19} In State v. Arnold, supra, the Ohio Supreme Court held,
{¶20} "We hold that statements made to interviewers at child-advocacy centers
that are made for medical diagnosis and treatment are nontestimonial and are
admissible without offending the Confrontation Clause. Thus, we affirm the judgment of
the court of appeals to the extent that M.A.'s statements to Marshall for the purpose of
medical treatment and diagnosis were properly admitted. We further hold that
statements made to interviewers at child-advocacy centers that serve primarily a
forensic or investigative purpose are testimonial and are inadmissible pursuant to the
Confrontation Clause when the declarant is unavailable for cross-examination at trial. "
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00140 7
{¶21} Here, a review of the record demonstrates A.L. testified at trial and was
available for cross-examination at trial. Therefore, Appellant's right to confront A.L.
relative to statements made by A.L. has not been violated; and the statements are not
hearsay. While Appellant’s counsel failed to subpoena C.J. Cross, the social worker
who conducted the interview, we find the outcome of the trial would not have been
otherwise but for the alleged error. Further, Appellant has not demonstrated prejudice
as a result of the state’s failure to provide a tape or transcripts of the proceedings.
{¶22} The first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶23} In the second assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in
denying his Criminal Rule 29 motion to dismiss the incidents during Christmas 2010,
and Spring of 2011.
{¶24} In determining whether a trial court erred in overruling an appellant's
motion for judgment of acquittal, the reviewing court focuses on the sufficiency of the
evidence. See, e.g., State v. Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d 545, 553, 651 N.E.2d 965,
974(1995); State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259, 273, 574 N.E.2d 492(1991).
{¶25} Appellant was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, in
violation of R.C. 2907.04(A), which states:
{¶26} "(A) No person who is eighteen years of age or older shall engage in
sexual conduct with another, who is not the spouse of the offender, when the offender
knows the other person is thirteen years of age or older but less than sixteen years of
age, or the offender is reckless in that regard."
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00140 8
{¶27} Determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the
testimony are primarily for the trier of fact. State v. Bradley, 8th Dist. No. 97333, 2012–
Ohio–2765, ¶ 14, citing State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230, 227 N.E.2d 212 (1967).
The trier of fact is best able “to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor,
gestures, and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of
the proffered testimony.” State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382, 2007–Ohio–2202, 865
N.E.2d 1264, ¶ 24. The trier of fact may take note of any inconsistencies and resolve
them accordingly, “believ[ing] all, part, or none of a witness's testimony.” State v. Raver,
10th Dist. No. 02AP–604, 2003–Ohio–958, ¶ 21, citing State v. Antill, 176 Ohio St. 61,
67, 197 N.E.2d 548 (1964).
{¶28} Here, A.L. testified to the location of the abuse, describing the sexual acts
in detail as committed by Appellant. Appellant essentially tries to attack the credibility of
A.L.'s testimony, but we find Appellant has not demonstrated the jury lost its way in
reaching its decision.
{¶29} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant's Criminal
Rule 29 motion for acquittal.
{¶30} The second assignment of error is overruled.
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00140 9
{¶31} Appellant's conviction in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is
affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Farmer, J. concur
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
Stark County, Case No. 2012CA00140 10
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
DELANOR L. MACKSYN :
:
Defendant-Appellant : Case No. 2012CA00140
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion, Appellant's conviction in
the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to Appellant.
s/ William B. Hoffman _________________
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
s/ W. Scott Gwin _____________________
HON. W. SCOTT GWIN
s/ Sheila G. Farmer __________________
HON. SHEILA G. FARMER
State v. Macksyn
Combined Opinion