State v. Moore

2020 Ohio 3459

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUASHAUN MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 108962

No. 108963

No. 108964

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

June 25, 2020

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas

Case Nos. CR-18-635068-E, CR-19-636198-C and CR-19-638207-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel A. Cleary, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Eric M. Levy, for appellant.

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, defendant-appellant Quashaun Moore appeals his convictions after he pled guilty in three cases. He asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel's withdrawal of a pretrial motion for a competency evaluation and that the trial court erred in failing to hold a competency hearing prior to accepting his guilty pleas. Moore also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Finally, he challenges his consecutive sentences, arguing that the imposition of consecutive sentences was contrary to law because the trial court failed to perform the analysis necessary for the imposition of consecutive sentences and that the imposition of consecutive sentences was unsupported by the record. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Procedural History and Factual Background

{¶ 2} On December 12, 2018, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Moore on five counts in Case No. CR-18-635068-E ("635068") — one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of R.C. 2923.32(A)(1) and four counts of receiving stolen motor vehicles in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A) — for crimes committed between July 18, 2018 and October 30, 2018.

{¶ 3} On January 11, 2019, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Moore on two counts in Case No. CR-19-636198-C ("636198") — one count of aggravated robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1) with one-year and three-year firearm specifications and one count of having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2). The charges arose out of an August 6, 2018 incident in which Moore and two codefendants robbed a victim at gunpoint while he was in the retail store of a gas station. A codefendant pulled out a gun and pointed it at the victim as Moore tackled the victim and took him to the ground. While Moore was struggling with the victim on the ground, one codefendant kicked the victim and anothercodefendant took a firearm from the victim, which he gave to Moore after Moore got up and exited the store with the codefendants.¹

{¶ 4} On March 20, 2019, a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Moore on five counts in Case No. CR-19-638207-A ("638207") — one count of felonious assault of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1); two counts of assault of a police officer in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A); one count of obstructing official business in violation of R.C. 2921.31(A) and one count of resisting arrest in violation of R.C. 2921.33(B). The charges arose out of March 15, 2019 traffic stop involving a vehicle that was travelling without lights. A police officer recognized Moore, who was in the front passenger seat, as having an outstanding arrest warrant in connection with the August 2018 aggravated robbery, and asked him to step out of the vehicle. When police officers attempted to place handcuffs on Moore and take him into custody, Moore resisted. In the confrontation that followed, one of the officers sustained a deep cut to his left eye that bled heavily, requiring medical treatment and resulting in permanent scarring. It was only after Moore was tasered that he became compliant.

{¶ 5} Moore initially pled not guilty to all charges and was assigned counsel. In early April 2019, he retained new counsel. On April 3, 2019, Moore's new defense counsel filed a motion in all three cases, requesting that Moore be referred to the psychiatric clinic for evaluation, pursuant to R.C. 2945.371, to determine (1) whetherhe was competent to stand trial and (2) whether he was he eligible for referral to the court's mental health docket ("motion for competency evaluation"). In support of the motion, defense counsel stated simply: "Defense counsel has reason to believe that Defendant may not be competent to stand trial and may be eligible for referral to the mental health docket." No explanation was provided in the motion as to why defense counsel believed Moore may not be competent to stand trial. On April 10, 2019, the trial court granted the motion in part, without objection by the state, and Moore was referred to the court psychiatric clinic for a competency evaluation.

{¶ 6} The competency evaluation never occurred.² At a pretrial conference on June 4, 2019, defense counsel made an oral motion to withdraw the motion for a competency evaluation on the ground that he no longer believed there was a need for it. As he explained to the court:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: There's one other issue I'd like to address, your Honor, if you don't mind. Previously I had asked the Court for a competency and a mental health evaluation. That was shortly after I met Mr. Moore and he elicited symptoms that I thought might raise the issue of his competency to stand trial.

Since that time I've spent some time with him; I'm confident that he understands the nature of these proceedings and * * * I'm confident that he's able to assist in his defense and I'm going to ask the Court to withdraw that previously filed motion that he be referred for competency and for referral for mental health.

{¶ 7} The trial court granted defense counsel's motion to withdraw the motion for a competency evaluation. After several continuances, 636198 was set for trial on July 10, 2019. Cases 638207 and 635068 were set for trial on September 3, 2019.

Plea Negotiations

{¶ 8} On July 10, 2019 — the morning of trial in 636198 — the state set forth, on the record, the terms of a "packaged" plea deal that the state had offered to Moore to resolve all three cases. Moore informed the trial court that he did not accept the state's plea offer. The trial court advised Moore of the maximum potential prison sentences Moore could receive on each count if he went to trial and was found guilty. The trial court also explained to Moore how the state's packaged plea offer worked, i.e., that if Moore proceeded to trial in 636198, the plea offer would be revoked as to all three cases. Moore indicated that he understood. After reviewing this information with Moore, the trial judge asked Moore if he "need[ed] time to talk to [his] lawyer about this." Moore responded, "Yes," and the trial judge took a recess so that Moore could discuss the state's plea offer with defense counsel.

{¶ 9} After Moore spoke with counsel, the trial judge asked Moore what he wanted to do. This exchange followed:

THE COURT: * * * So, Mr. Moore, now you had an opportunity to talk to your lawyer about what you would like to do today. Your case is set for trial today. What would you like to do?

THE DEFENDANT: It don't matter at this point. I don't care.

THE COURT: You have to say what you would like to do. You can't say it doesn't matter, you don't care. You have to respond to me. Your one case is set for trial today, 636198. So if you would like to go to trial today, you can, absolutely. * * *

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, he has expressed some dissatisfaction with my performance, so —

THE COURT: Well, [defense counsel] is your second lawyer. Today is your trial date. I'll go through everything that [defense counsel] has done for you. He has filed a number of motions on your behalf. There has been numerous pretrials. I believe there has been numerous items of discovery that have been turned over on your behalf. I think you may have even watched a video today? Did you see a video today? You're shaking your head yes?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: I don't know however many — how many other CDs or items of discovery have been turned over, but I know it's been voluminous because there have been so many pretrials. So you're set for trial today, and [defense counsel] is representing you. You retained him. I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be representing you today.

THE DEFENDANT: I don't even know what is going on in the case. I barely have — I have no discovery. Today was the first time I saw some real discovery.

THE COURT: * * * Most of the discovery has been marked counsel only. So that's probably why you haven't seen it. That's what the State has marked a number of items in discovery as counsel only, which would mean you wouldn't see it. Are there other videotapes?

[THE STATE]: Judge, the only other videotape pertaining to this portion of Mr. Moore is his own video recorded statement.

* * *

THE COURT: Do you need to see your own videotaped statement? Do you recall what you said in that?

THE DEFENDANT: No.

THE COURT: You don't need to see that. So what else would you like to see that you haven't seen? You don't need to see the recorded statement.

THE DEFENDANT: I am only going to trial for the robbery case, right?

THE COURT: That's the only case set for trial today. But the State has evaluated all of your cases for a potential plea. If you wanted to resolve — you would only go to trial on one today, but if you wanted to plead, you could plead on all 3 of them today. But if you go to trial on the one, then there is no plea available on the other 2.

THE DEFENDANT: Go to trial on all of them, right?

THE COURT: You can go to trial on all of them if you want. It's up to you. It's your choice.

{¶ 10} Defense counsel then advised the court that Moore was asking him "whether or not I can try for another plea deal." Moore, defense counsel and the state proceeded to engage in additional plea negotiations, ultimately reaching a more favorable plea agreement that included additional terms Moore had requested:

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So

...