State v. Speelman , 2016 Ohio 3409 ( 2016 )

[Cite as State v. Speelman, 2016-Ohio-3409.]
COURT OF APPEALS
ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO : JUDGES:
: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
: Hon. John W. Wise, J.
-vs- :
:
NATHANIEL A. SPEELMAN : Case No. 15-COA-045
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 15-CRI-014
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 9, 2016
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
CHRISTOPHER E. BALLARD RUTH R. FISCHBEIN-COHEN
110 College Street 3552 SEVERN ROAD
3rd Street Cleveland, OH 44118
Ashland, OH 44805
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-045 2
Farmer, P.J.
{¶1} On May 14, 2015, the Ashland County Grand Jury indicted appellant,
Nathaniel Speelman, on one count of pandering sexually oriented material involving a
minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322, one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of
R.C. 2907.05, and one count of endangering children in violation of R.C. 2919.22. Said
charges arose from a video sent from appellant to the cell phone of Kim Crigger.
{¶2} A jury trial commenced on October 27, 2015. The jury found appellant guilty
of the pandering count and not guilty of the gross sexual imposition count. The
endangering count had been dismissed. By judgment entry filed December 2, 2015, the
trial court sentenced appellant to two years in prison, imposed a $500 fine, and ordered
him to pay court costs.
{¶3} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶4} "COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO MOVE THE COURT TO
WAIVE COSTS AND IN FAILING TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY."
II
{¶5} "COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE BY FAILING TO MOVE THE COURT TO
SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE."
I, II
{¶6} Appellant claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion
for the waiver of costs, an affidavit of indigency, and a motion to suppress. We disagree.
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-045 3
{¶7} The standard this issue must be measured against is set out in State v.
Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989), paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. Appellant
must establish the following:
2. 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 arises
from counsel's performance. (State v. Lytle [1976], 48 Ohio St.2d 391, 2
O.O.3d 495, 358 N.E.2d 623; Strickland v. Washington [1984], 466 U.S.
668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, followed.)
3. To show that a defendant has been prejudiced by counsel's
deficient performance, the defendant must prove that there exists a
reasonable probability that, were it not for counsel's errors, the result of the
trial would have been different.
{¶8} This court must accord deference to defense counsel's strategic choices
made during trial and "requires us to eliminate the distorting effect of hindsight." State v.
Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380, 388 (1987).
FAILURE TO REQUEST A WAIVER OF COSTS/FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF INDEGENCY
{¶9} Pursuant to R.C. 2947.23(A)(1)(a): "In all criminal cases, including
violations of ordinances, the judge or magistrate shall include in the sentence the costs
of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, and
render a judgment against the defendant for such costs." Subsection (C) states: "The
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-045 4
court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of
prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time
of sentencing or at any time thereafter."
{¶10} Even though a person is indigent, a trial court may still assess costs. State
v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277, 2006-Ohio-905.
{¶11} During the sentencing hearing held on November 30, 2015, defense
counsel, in an effort to place appellant in the best light for sentencing and argue for
community control, argued appellant was "working full time during the entire pendency of
the matter." November 30, 2015 T. at 4. Defense counsel stated appellant worked as a
"mechanic for the last couple of years, making $14 an hour, and when you gave him the
opportunity to be out following the trial, he picked that employment back up immediately,
and it's my understanding that if he were given an opportunity on Community Control, that
job would continue to remain available to him." Id. at 4-5. Defense counsel requested
the suspension of a fine, arguing "despite the fact that he has been working because he
has been in and out of jail, his finances are such that he would qualify as indigent." Id. at
10.
{¶12} With these assertions and the presentence investigation report, the trial
court made a specific finding that appellant had "the future ability to be employed and pay
financial sanctions" and imposed a fine of $500 and court costs. Id. at 17-18. We note
appellant did not have court appointed trial counsel.
{¶13} Although defense counsel did not file an affidavit of indigency in the trial
court case, given the facts of appellant's employment history as argued by defense
counsel, the private retention of counsel, and the trial court's reliance on "future ability,"
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-045 5
we find appellant has not shown that the results would have been different had a formal
motion for waiver and an affidavit of indigency been filed.
{¶14} Upon review, we do not find any evidence of deficiency of defense counsel
on this issue.
FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION TO SUPPRESS
{¶15} Appellant challenges the seizure of his cell phone. He argues the seizure
and viewing of a video on his cell phone without a warrant was unlawful, citing State v.
Smith, 124 Ohio St.3d 163, 2009-Ohio-6426, syllabus, in support ("[t]he warrantless
search of data within a cell phone seized incident to a lawful arrest is prohibited by the
Fourth Amendment when the search is unnecessary for the safety of law-enforcement
officers and there are no exigent circumstances").
{¶16} As stated by this court in State v. Lavelle, 5th Dist. Stark No. 07 CA 130,
2008-Ohio-3119, ¶ 47:
Trial counsel's failure to file a suppression motion does not per se
constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio
St.3d 378, 389, 2000-Ohio-0448. Counsel can only be found ineffective for
failing to file a motion to suppress if, based on the record, the motion would
have been granted. State v. Cheatam, 5th Dist. No. 06-CA-88, 2007-Ohio-
3009, at ¶ 86.
{¶17} In order to review this issue, we must turn to the trial testimony. Kim Crigger
went to the Ashland Police Department to report the receipt from appellant of a strange
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-045 6
video of appellant and a child via her cell phone. T. at 8, 219-220. She showed the video
sent to her cell phone to the police. T. at 8-9. The police accompanied Ms. Crigger to
appellant's apartment. T. at 10. The police confronted appellant about the video and
advised him of his rights. T. at 12. Appellant admitted to recording the video on his
iPhone and at that time, the police seized his cell phone. Id. Appellant "was okay with
that" and voluntarily relinquished his passcode. T. at 13.
{¶18} Because the police had already viewed the video and had possession of it
via Ms. Crigger's cell phone, appellant was not prejudiced by the seizure of his cell phone.
{¶19} In addition, the inevitable discovery rule as set forth in State v. Perkins, 18
Ohio St.3d 193 (1985), syllabus, also applies ("[t]he ultimate or inevitable discovery
exception to the Exclusionary Rule is hereby adopted so that illegally obtained evidence
is properly admitted in a trial court proceeding once it is established that the evidence
would have been ultimately or inevitably discovered during the course of a lawful
investigation"). Police had already viewed the video on Ms. Crigger's cell phone and
appellant had admitted to making the video, providing ample probable cause to obtain a
search warrant. Further, appellant's relinquishment of his passcode to unlock the cell
phone was at the least a tacit consent to its seizure.
{¶20} Based upon the facts disclosed at trial, we fail to find that a motion to
suppress would have been successful.
{¶21} Upon review, we do not find any evidence of deficiency of defense counsel
on this issue.
{¶22} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
Ashland County, Case No. 15-COA-045 7
{¶23} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Ashland County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By Farmer, P.J.
Hoffman, J. and
Wise, J. concur.
SGF/sg 520