[Cite as State v. Akhtar, 2016-Ohio-988.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
AUGLAIZE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 2-15-16
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Auglaize County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 2014-CR-134
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: March 14, 2016
APPEARANCES:
Todd W. Barstow for Appellant
R. Andrew Augsburger for Appellee
Case No. 2-15-16
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Muhammad Akhtar (“Akhtar”) brings this appeal
from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Auglaize County finding him
guilty of OVI and sentencing him to community control. Akhtar claims that his
conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence and was against the manifest
weight of the evidence. Akhtar also claims that he was denied the effective
assistance of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶2} On August 7, 2014, the Grand Jury for Auglaize County indicted
Akhtar on one count of OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a)(G)(1)(d), a
felony of the fourth degree. Doc. 1. The indictment indicated that within the prior
six years of the current offense, Akhtar had been convicted or pled guilty to three
or more OVI offenses. Id. Akhtar then hired private counsel to represent him.
Doc. 10, 20. However, on October 16, 2014, Akhtar replaced his attorney with a
new attorney. Doc. 33, 34. Both attorneys engaged in discovery. See Doc. 21,
36. On January 27, 2015, Akhtar filed a motion through counsel to continue the
jury trial to investigate the constitutionality of his prior OVI convictions. Doc. 53.
The trial court granted the motion to continue. Doc. 55.
{¶3} After waiving his request for a jury trial, a bench trial was held on
August 24, 2015. Doc. 121. The State presented the testimony of one witness.
Patrolman Brian Christopher (“Christopher”) of the St. Marys Police Department
testified that on July 25, 2014, he was patrolling the area across from a Sunoco gas
-2-
Case No. 2-15-16
station in St. Marys. Tr. 15-16. Christopher stated that he went to that area after
dispatch received two different calls claiming that an employee at the station was
“acting odd.” Tr. 17. Christopher then saw a car with Michigan plates leave the
station and chose to follow it. Tr. 18. The driver was subsequently identified as
Akhtar. Tr. 32. While following the vehicle, Christopher observed several
different marked lane violations and that the driver was driving very slow for the
area. Tr. 18. Christopher then stopped the vehicle due to the traffic violations.
Tr. 19. When Christopher arrived at the driver’s side door, he noted “a strong
odor of an alcoholic beverage” coming from the vehicle. Tr. 19. Christopher also
noted that Akhtar’s movements were very slow and uncoordinated. Tr. 20. The
speech of Akhtar was slow and slurred. Tr. 20. Christopher then asked Akhtar to
exit the vehicle and observed a bottle of alcohol sitting by the seat. Tr. 20.
{¶4} Once Akhtar exited the vehicle, he was unstable and had a difficult
time maintaining his balance. Tr. 21. Christopher then asked Akhtar to perform
the field sobriety tests. Tr. 21. While attempted to complete the horizontal gaze
nystagmus test, Akhtar was “swaying back and forth, having a hard time standing
in upright, - the upright position.” Tr. 21. Christopher could not complete the test
because Akhtar was too unstable and fell forward causing Christopher to have to
catch him. Tr. 22. Christopher did not even have Akhtar attempt the walking test
because Akhtar “bent down and almost fell onto his face.” Tr. 22-23. Christopher
-3-
Case No. 2-15-16
testified that in his opinion, based upon his experience as a police officer, Akhtar
was severely under the influence of alcohol. Doc. 23.
{¶5} Christopher then played a video of the stop taken from the dashcam of
the patrol car. The video shows the car in front of the officer crossing the
centerline of the road multiple times. Ex. 1. When asked his address, Akhtar
appeared to have difficulty providing that information to Christopher. Id. Upon
exiting the vehicle, Akhtar stated that he had drunk one beer. Id. While preparing
to take the sobriety tests, Akhtar was stumbling around and appeared to be unable
to stand stationary. Id. The video shows that while performing the test, Akhtar
was swaying and eventually started to fall. Id. Akhtar then admitted that he had
drunk two 24 oz. beers recently. Id. After the video, Christopher testified that
Akhtar should not have been operating a vehicle in the condition he was in and
that Akhtar was under the influence of alcohol at the time he was driving the
vehicle. Tr. 33.
{¶6} After Christopher testified, the video was admitted without objection.
Tr. 37. The State then moved to have Exhibits two, three, four, and five, which
were certified copies of government records, admitted. Tr. 37. Akhtar objected
on the grounds that “there was no way to identify whether constitutional rights
have been violated” in the cases from which the convictions stemmed. Tr. 38.
State’s Exhibit 2 was a certified copy of an OVI conviction on December 7, 2009,
in Zanesville Municipal Court after Akhtar entered a guilty plea. Ex. 2. State’s
-4-
Case No. 2-15-16
Exhibit 3 was a certified copy of an OVI conviction on April 22, 2011, in the
Muskingum County Court after Akhtar entered a plea of no contest. Ex. 3. State’s
Exhibit 4 was a certified copy of an OVI conviction on April 24, 2013, in the
Zanesville Municipal Court after Akhtar entered a no-contest plea. Ex. 4. State’s
Exhibit 5 was a record request certification provided by the Ohio Bureau of Motor
Vehicles. Ex. 5. The trial court overruled the objections and admitted the
exhibits. Tr. 42. The State then rested its case. Tr. 42.
{¶7} Akhtar then testified on his own behalf. Akhtar testified that for his
first offense, he was taken to the court and told he would serve six days in jail and
pay the fine without any discussion about the charges, penalties, or representation.
Tr. 45-46. Akhtar also indicated that at the time of the hearing, he was still under
the influence of alcohol. Tr. 46. According to Akhtar, he did not recall everything
that happened because he was still intoxicated. Tr. 48.
{¶8} As to the second offense, Akhtar testified that he was not sure if he
had counsel representing him on the OVI charge. Tr. 50. The second charge
occurred after he was injured in an accident and he was taken to the hospital where
a blood test was done while he was unconscious. Tr. 51. When he changed his
plea to one of no contest, he did sign a waiver of his constitutional rights. Tr. 53.
{¶9} For the third offense, Akhtar claimed that he was walking out of his
store in Zanesville when someone yelled at him that he had struck their car in the
parking lot. Tr. 56. Akhtar testified that he had not been in the car at all, but that
-5-
Case No. 2-15-16
he was arrested because the car was half way out of the parking spot. Tr. 56-57.
Akhtar testified that his ex-wife had a key to the car and must have moved it. Tr.
58-59. Akhtar admitted that he had been drinking when he was arrested, but
denied being in the vehicle. Tr. 60. Counsel was provided for Akhtar for this
offense. Tr. 61-62. Akhtar claimed that he only saw counsel three times and that
counsel advised him to enter a plea of no contest even though he knew that the
witnesses for the State were not going to be present to testify. 67. Akhtar denied
that anyone told him what the consequences of the conviction would be, instead
just telling him he would serve 20 days in jail and that would be it. Tr. 67.
Following cross-examination, Akhtar rested his case. Tr. 86.
{¶10} The trial court determined that since Akhtar was challenging the
constitutionality of his prior convictions, they could be raised collaterally in this
case. Tr. 103. The trial court then reached the following conclusions regarding
the prior convictions.
[B]ased on the record and based upon the testimony, [Akhtar]
either waived his right to counsel or he had counsel in each of
the three (3) underlying convictions. No question that it was
him, no question that he, in fact, was found guilty, no question to
the fact he was sentenced, and no question, in fact, that he either
waived right to counsel or was represented by counsel.
Tr. 103. The trial court then found Akhtar guilty as charged in the indictment. On
October 16, 2015, a sentencing hearing was held. Doc. 97. The trial court ordered
that Akhtar be sentenced to five years of community control sanctions, which
-6-
Case No. 2-15-16
included 180 days in the Auglaize County Correctional Center. Id. Akhtar filed a
notice of appeal from the trial court’s judgment. Doc. 110. On appeal, Akhtar
raises the following assignments of error.
First Assignment of Error
[Akhtar’s] trial counsel was ineffective, thereby denying him his
right to effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the
United States and Ohio Constitutions.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court erred and deprived [Akhtar] of due process of
law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and Article One Section Ten of the Ohio
Constitution by finding him guilty of OVI as a felony of the
fourth degree as that verdict was not supported by sufficient
evidence and was also against the manifest weight of the
evidence.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
{¶11} Akhtar claims in the first assignment of error that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel.
In evaluating whether a petitioner has been denied effective
assistance of counsel, this court has held that the test is “whether
the accused, under all the circumstances, * * * had a fair trial
and substantial justice was done.” State v. Hester (1976), 45 Ohio
St.2d 71, 74 O.O.2d 156, 341 N.E.2d 304, paragraph four of the
syllabus. When making that determination, a two-step process is
usually employed. “First, there must be a determination as to
whether there has been a substantial violation of any of defense
counsel's essential duties to his client. Next, and analytically
separate from the question of whether the defendant's Sixth
Amendment rights were violated, there must be a determination
as to whether the defense was prejudiced by counsel's
ineffectiveness.” State v. Lytle (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 391, 396–397,
-7-
Case No. 2-15-16
2 O.O.3d 495, 498, 358 N.E.2d 623, 627, vacated on other
grounds (1978), 438 U.S. 910, 98 S.Ct. 3135, 57 L.Ed.2d 1154.
On the issue of counsel's ineffectiveness, the petitioner has the
burden of proof, since in Ohio a properly licensed attorney is
presumably competent. See Vaughn v. Maxwell (1965), 2 Ohio
St.2d 299, 31 O.O.2d 567, 209 N.E.2d 164; State v. Jackson, 64
Ohio St.2d at 110–111, 18 O.O.3d at 351, 413 N.E.2d at 822.
State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 289, 1999–Ohio–102, 714 N .E.2d 905.
{¶12} Here, Akhtar claims that counsel was ineffective for 1) failing to file
motions to suppress or motions in limine regarding the prior convictions and 2) for
having a poor trial strategy regarding the prior convictions. A review of the record
indicates that trial counsel for Akhtar did not act deficiently as claimed on appeal.
Although counsel did not file a motion to suppress the prior convictions, counsel
objected to their admission at trial. Tr. 38. The very reasons that Akhtar claims
may have led to the suppression of the convictions were argued in front of the trial
court and overruled. Additionally, trial counsel requested and obtained a
continuance to investigate the circumstances of the prior convictions, and steps
were taken, though unsuccessfully, to have those convictions vacated. At trial the
convictions were challenged not only on their facts, but on potential constitutional
issues. The trial court in this case addressed these very issues. Contrary to the
position taken by Akhtar in his appellate brief, evidence was presented that Akhtar
had been offered counsel and had either accepted counsel or waived it prior to
each of the convictions in question. The trial court determined that the pleas and
-8-
Case No. 2-15-16
the subsequent convictions were properly taken. Although Akhtar claims that trial
counsel erred by not submitting transcripts of the plea hearings, this was not an
error of counsel. Counsel addressed this issue to the trial court at the trial and
indicated that no transcripts were available from the prior hearings. Tr. 105-106.
Thus, no trial counsel would have been capable of providing the transcripts of the
prior hearings. Finally, Akhtar has presented no argument that any of the alleged
errors would have affected the outcome of the trial.1 The first assignment of error
is overruled.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
{¶13} One of the allegations raised in the second assignment of error is that
the conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. When reviewing a
question of sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court determines whether,
after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational
trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime charged proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. State v. Blanton, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-15-07, 2015-Ohio-
4620. In this case, Akhtar was charged with a violation of R.C.
4511.19(A)(1)(a)(G)(1)(d). The State was required to prove that Akhtar operated
a vehicle in Ohio while under the influence of alcohol. R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).
1
Although Akhtar also claims that trial counsel was ineffective for filing a motion to have Akhtar screened
for intervention in lieu of conviction after the trial, this motion had no effect on the trial or the conviction.
The motion was based upon a desire to withdraw a guilty plea, which did not occur in this case as Akhtar
pled not guilty and was found guilty after a trial. The motion was denied. Akhtar points to nothing in the
record that would show that the filing of this motion affected the case in any manner.
-9-
Case No. 2-15-16
Additionally, the State had to prove that within the six years prior to the offense,
Akhtar had been convicted of or pled guilty to three or four OVIs or equivalent
offenses. R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d).
{¶14} A review of the record shows that Christopher testified that he
observed Akhtar driving his vehicle on a road in Ohio, that Akhtar was weaving
within his own lane and had crossed the centerline multiple times. When
Christopher stopped Akhtar, he smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage
emanating from the car. Akhtar had slow responses, was slurring his words, and
was barely able to remain standing. According to Christopher, Akhtar appeared to
be so intoxicated that it was not possible for him to complete the field sobriety
tests. The video of the vehicle moving and the subsequent stop confirms the
testimony of Christopher. Additionally, Akhtar admits on the video that he had
recently consumed 48 oz. of beer prior to driving. At no point does Akhtar deny
that he was driving the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Evidence
was presented through State’s Exhibits two, three, and four that indicate that
within the six years prior to the instant offense, Akhtar was convicted of three
other OVI offenses. Akhtar did not deny that these convictions occurred, though
he challenged the constitutionality of the convictions. Viewing the evidence in a
light most favorable to the State, the evidence is sufficient to support the
conviction.
-10-
Case No. 2-15-16
Manifest Weight of the Evidence
{¶15} The second claim made in the second assignment of error is that the
conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.2 Unlike sufficiency of
the evidence, the question of manifest weight of the evidence does not view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution.
Weight of the evidence concerns “the inclination of the greater
amount of credible evidence, offered in a trial to support one
side of the issue rather than the other. It indicates clearly to the
jury that the party having the burden of proof will be entitled to
their verdict, if, on weighing the evidence in their minds, they
shall find the greater amount of credible evidence sustains the
issue which is to be established before them. Weight is not a
question of mathematics, but depends on its effect in inducing
belief.”
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 387, 678 N.E.2d 541 (1997) (citing Black's
Law Dictionary (6 Ed.1990) 1594). A new trial should be granted only in the
exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against conviction. Id.
Although the appellate court acts as a thirteenth juror, it still must give due
deference to the findings made by the fact-finder.
The fact-finder * * * occupies a superior position in determining
credibility. The fact-finder can hear and see as well as observe
the body language, evaluate voice inflections, observe hand
gestures, perceive the interplay between the witness and the
examiner, and watch the witness' reaction to exhibits and the
like. Determining credibility from a sterile transcript is a
Herculean endeavor. A reviewing court must, therefore, accord
due deference to the credibility determinations made by the fact-
finder.
2
As these were two separate arguments, they should have been addressed in two separate assignments of
error.
-11-
Case No. 2-15-16
State v. Thompson, 127 Ohio App.3d 511, 529, 713 N.E.2d 456 (8th Dist.
1998).
{¶16} In this case, the evidence clearly shows that Akhtar was under the
influence of alcohol while operating the vehicle. The evidence also shows that he
had been previously convicted of three prior OVIs within the six years before the
instant offense. The evidence presented to the court shows that at the time of the
prior convictions, Akhtar was either represented by counsel or had waived the
right to counsel. The evidence does not weigh heavily against conviction. Thus, a
new trial is not necessary. The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶17} Having found no error in the particulars assigned or argued, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Auglaize County is affirmed.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW, P.J. Concur.
ROGERS, J., Concurs in Judgment Only.
/hls
-12-