State v. Easterling

139 N.E.3d 497

2019 Ohio 2470

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.Brian K. EASTERLING, Defendant-Appellant

No. 2018-CA-33

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Greene County.

Rendered June 20, 2019

DAVID M. MORRISON, Atty. Reg. No. 0084368, Greene County Prosecutor's Office, Appellate Division, 61 Greene Street, Suite 200, Xenia, Ohio 45385, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee.

DAVID R. MILES, Atty. Reg. No. 0013841, 1160 E. Dayton-Yellow Springs Road, Fairborn, Ohio 45324, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

FROELICH, J.

{¶ 1} Brian K. Easterling was convicted after a jury trial of domestic violence, a third-degree felony, and obstructing official business, a second-degree misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences totaling 36 months in prison. Easterling appeals from his convictions, raising seven assignments of error. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment as to obstructing official business will be affirmed; the judgment as to domestic violence will be modified to a first-degree misdemeanor, the sentence for domestic violence will be modified to the maximum 180 days in jail, and the judgment will be affirmed as modified. Easterling will be ordered released from custody on this matter, subject to any detainers, hold orders, or other orders that would require his continued imprisonment or detention.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶ 2} The State's evidence at trial established the following facts.

{¶ 3} On March 1, 2018, Easterling, then 43 years old, and his 78-year-old father, Ernest Easterling,¹ resided together in Xenia. Easterling's 51-year-old brother, Michael Shane Easterling ("Shane"), lived approximately one and a half blocks away. Shane stated that it would take one to two minutes to drive from one residence to the other.

{¶ 4} Sometime between 11:00 p.m. and midnight on March 1, Ernest drove to Shane's home and "beat" on Shane's door. Shane testified that Ernest appeared "very stressed out" and "dazed." Shane stated that Ernest was acting normally, but appeared "very anxious" and "very agitated." Shane noticed that Ernest (who shaved his head) had a lump on the back of his head. Shane had seen his father earlier in the day, and Ernest did not have a lump on his head at that time. Shane testified that his father had "thin skin" on his arms, which bled easily, but he had never seen his father develop a knot from someone just touching him.

{¶ 5} Shane testified, over objection,² that Ernest asked him "to please come and get Brian [Easterling] out of his house because Brian had just punched him and knocked him to the floor." Shane responded to his father that he "wasn't messing with Brian. That he's not worth me going to jail over." Shane calmed his father down and called the police. Shane then drove his father home in his father's truck. The two men sat in the truck awaiting the police. Shane repeatedly offered to drive his father to the hospital, but Ernest refused to go.

{¶ 6} Xenia Police Officers Atkins and Roelker arrived almost instantaneously. Ernest remained in the truck, and Shane stood outside the vehicle. Officer Roelker spoke with Ernest, while Officer Atkins spoke with Shane and another man. The officers offered to call an ambulance, but Ernest refused medical treatment.

{¶ 7} While Shane was speaking with Officer Atkins, Easterling came onto the front porch and walked to the edge of the steps, approximately 10 feet from the front door. Officer Atkins testified that he started to approach Easterling, told Easterling that he needed to talk with Easterling, and told Easterling not to go back into the house. Easterling, however, turned around and started back toward the front door. Officer Atkins continued to tell Easterling to stop and not go back into the house.

{¶ 8} Shane told Officer Atkins that Easterling was going to lock the door and they were not going to be able to enter. In response, Officer Atkins went to the front door and grabbed the door. Atkins stated that Easterling slammed the door shut. Shane testified that Easterling was forcibly holding the door closed and got into a "pushing match" with the officer. Officer Roelker then went to the front door to assist Officer Atkins, and the two officers pushed their way in. The officers struggled briefly with Easterling while arresting him. Officer Atkins testified that Easterling's actions hindered his ability to perform his official duties.

{¶ 9} Officer Anthony Vitale came to Easterling's residence to assist Officers Atkins and Roelker. He was asked to take photographs of Ernest's reported injuries. Ernest was still seated in the passenger seat of his vehicle. Officer Vitale took photographs of the outside of the residence, of Ernest taken from the outside of the truck, and of the back right side of Ernest's head. Vitale testified that he personally observed Ernest's head, and there appeared to be a "slight swelling to the area where I took photos." Officer Vitale stated that he saw small red marks in that area.

{¶ 10} The parties stipulated that Easterling had two or more prior convictions for domestic violence.

{¶ 11} On March 12, 2018, Easterling was indicted for domestic violence and obstructing official business. The domestic violence charge included an allegation that Easterling had previously been convicted of domestic violence three times – twice in Xenia Municipal Court (Case Nos. 05 CRB 1759 and 12 CRB 1150) and once in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas (Case No. 02 CR 862). The existence of the prior convictions elevated the domestic violence charge to a third-degree felony. See R.C. 2919.25(D)(4).

{¶ 12} Trial was scheduled for May 21, 2018. On May 3, Easterling requested a continuance of the trial date on the ground that his counsel had a scheduling conflict. The court granted the motion and reset the matter for noon on June 4, 2018.

{¶ 13} Ernest died of an unrelated illness on May 28, 2018. On the morning of June 4, 2018, Easterling filed a motion in limine, seeking to preclude the admission of statements made by Ernest to the Xenia police officers and Ernest's written statement. Easterling argued that the admission of these statements would violate the Confrontation Clause. The trial court did not rule on the motion before the parties appeared for trial.

{¶ 14} On June 4, prior to beginning the trial and outside the presence of prospective jurors, the trial court invited the parties to place on the record the status of any plea negotiations. Defense counsel stated that his understanding of the procedure under Lafler v. Cooper , 566 U.S. 156, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012), was that the trial court needed to be satisfied that plea negotiations were made, that Easterling was aware of the plea negotiations, and that Easterling's decision regarding the plea was made with full understanding of what those plea negotiations were. The court then questioned Easterling about the plea negotiations, and Easterling repeatedly stated that he did not "understand any of this." When Easterling stated that he had chosen to go to trial, the trial court indicated that the trial would proceed.

{¶ 15} Defense counsel told the trial court that the State had offered a plea whereby Easterling would pled to domestic violence as a fourth-degree felony and the case would be "administratively terminated today." The trial court responded that the State had made that offer during the previous week and that the offer had been rejected by Easterling. Defense counsel agreed that the plea had been rejected, but noted that the rejection occurred within 24 hours of Ernest's death. The court then had the prospective jurors brought into the courtroom to begin jury selection.

{¶ 16} Before the State called its first witness (Shane), the State brought to the court's attention that it had not addressed the motion in limine. The court invited arguments from counsel. Defense counsel argued that the admission of statements by Ernest to the police would violate the Confrontation Clause. Counsel further stated that he had recently become aware that the State intended to offer statements made by Ernest to Shane; defense counsel argued that these statements were inadmissible hearsay. The prosecutor responded that Ernest's statements to Shane fell within a hearsay exception and were not testimonial. The trial court provisionally overruled the motion, stating that it would "allow the testimony to develop" and that defense counsel could object when he felt an objection was appropriate.

{¶ 17} The trial proceeded with three witnesses from the State; Easterling did not call any witnesses. Through cross-examination of the State's witnesses, Easterling attempted to show that Ernest was alcoholic and prone to falling and that Shane's testimony was not credible due to animosity between the brothers. During closing argument, defense counsel further argued that Easterling did not obstruct official business, because his actions delayed his arrest by only 90 seconds, per Officer Atkins's testimony.

{¶ 18} The jury found Easterling guilty of both domestic violence and obstructing official business; the verdict form for domestic violence did not require a finding regarding Easterling's prior convictions, and it did not reference the degree of the offense. After a presentence investigation, the trial court imposed 60 days for obstructing official business and a maximum 36 months for domestic violence as a third-degree felony, to be served concurrently.

{¶ 19} Easterling appeals, raising seven assignments of error. We will address them in a manner that facilitates our analysis.

II. Plea Negotiations

{¶ 20} Easterling's first and second assignments of error concern the plea bargaining process. His first assignment claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations. His second assignment claims that the trial court erred in not allowing him to explain his reasons for turning down the proposed plea agreement.

...