State v. Chaney
| Docket Number | 112647 |
| Decision Date | 25 January 2024 |
| Citation | 2024 Ohio 248 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAKYM CHANEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Yasmine Hasan and Anthony T. Miranda, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Scott J. Friedman, for appellant.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Rakym Chaney ("Chaney") appeals his conviction, raising one assignment of error for review:
Assignment of Error I: The trial court abused its discretion when it denied [Chaney's] request to continue the sentencing hearing.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} Following a transfer from the juvenile division to the general division of the court of common pleas, Chaney was charged in a 56-count information. The charges arose from violent crimes that were committed on April 24, 2021, May 13, 2021, May 14, 2021, and May 16, 2021, when Chaney and his codefendant, Michael Bennett ("Bennett"), were both 16 years old. Chaney and Bennett were identified through a published media photo weeks after they robbed two victims of their vehicle at gunpoint in Shaker Heights. Chaney and Bennett were also linked to one vehicle stolen at gunpoint by other individuals in East Cleveland. That vehicle was used in the carjacking of another victim at gunpoint. Chaney and Bennett were placed inside of both vehicles through surveillance footage, DNA, and fingerprint evidence. Chaney and Bennett used one of the vehicles in a carjacking in Willoughby, and that vehicle was used in a carjacking in an Old Brooklyn parking lot.
{¶ 3} Chaney and Bennett were also linked to other carjackings. A vehicle from a carjacking perpetrated by another juvenile in Euclid was subsequently used in two crimes that were committed in South Euclid and Cleveland Heights. In South Euclid, a middle school teacher was shot in the main artery of his leg during a carjacking. Luckily, the victim's girlfriend was present and quickly called 911. Five minutes later, an off-duty police officer was shot at while attempting to stop his daughter and friend from being carjacked in a Cleveland Heights driveway. The shell casings from both scenes were matched and Chaney and Bennett's DNA were found in the vehicle used in both crimes.
{¶ 4} The trial court assigned Chaney the same defense counsel ("original counsel") that he previously retained in two dismissed cases involving 8 of the 56 charges. See Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-21-666055 and CR-22-667506. Ultimately, Chaney and Bennett entered into a plea agreement with state, and a plea hearing was held on September 28, 2022. At the hearing, Chaney acknowledged the repercussions of pleading guilty:
(Tr. 20.) Following the trial court's plea colloquy, Chaney and Bennett pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder, eight counts of aggravated robbery, one count of felonious assault, two counts of receiving stolen property, six one-year firearm specifications, and three three-year firearm specifications. As part of the plea agreement, the parties agreed to a sentencing range of 18 to 22 years of incarceration with no possibility of early release. The trial court accepted the defendants' guilty pleas, ordered presentence-investigation reports ("PSI"), and scheduled a sentencing hearing for November 1, 2022. Chaney's PSI provided details regarding his childhood, education, and mental health, including that Chaney suffered from abuse and trauma, received mental health services, had possible learning disabilities, and used alcohol and drugs.
{¶5} After 6:00 p.m. on the night before the sentencing hearing, when the trial court was closed, a notice of appearance and a motion for continuance were filed by Chaney's newly retained counsel ("new counsel"). In the motion, Chaney sought to continue the sentencing hearing, advising that he retained new counsel over the weekend to evaluate whether a motion to withdraw his guilty plea was in his best interest. New counsel requested no less than 14 days from the date she received discovery from the state to review it with Chaney and 30 days to request and receive medical, educational, and Children and Family Services records to be used for mitigation purposes in the event Chaney's case proceeded to sentencing.
{¶6} On November 1, 2022, the state, the defendants, their family members, and their attorneys, including original and new counsel, appeared for the sentencing hearing. Two victims also appeared by video conference. Prior to proceeding with sentencing, the state mentioned new counsel's filings and noted its objection to Chaney's motion for continuance. The trial court indicated that it had not seen the motion until that morning and addressed the matter with Chaney's attorneys. Chaney's attorneys advised that they would be representing him together, and Chaney confirmed that he intended to keep both. Chaney's original counsel advised that he prepared a sentencing memorandum and was ready to procced, although he was not "in the loop of these issues." (Tr. 52.)
{¶ 7} Chaney's new counsel advised the court that a continuance was needed in order for her to review discovery and properly advise Chaney regarding a potential motion to withdraw his plea in light of the serious charges and penalties he faced. New counsel further advised that it may be prudent to obtain records based on the information Chaney's family provided regarding his past medical history, educational hurdles, and trauma for purposes of mitigation at his sentencing. The state orally objected to Chaney's motion for continuance and advised that nothing would change the terms of plea deal, she and Chaney's original counsel extensively pretried the case, and mitigation evidence was provided and considered during plea negotiations. Bennett indicated to the court that he was ready to proceed with sentencing regardless of Chaney's motion.
{¶ 8} After hearing the parties' arguments, the trial court recessed to consider Chaney's motion. When the hearing resumed, the trial court stated that Chaney could file a postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea should additional information come to light. The trial court also emphasized that there was an agreed-upon sentencing range of 18 to 22 years and some additional information regarding Chaney's mental health would not make much of a difference. The trial court noted that the PSI included details regarding Chaney's mental health and education and stated, "I don't know what else there could be that would be so compelling that it would * * * almost guarantee that the court would either deviate from the recommendation * * * or would * * * ultimately sentence much differently if whatever that information is came to light." (Tr. 60.) The trial court further noted that Chaney learned of the charges against him when he was charged by information in June 2022 and concluded that Chaney had time to assess the evidence and determine the best course for resolution. Ultimately, the trial court denied Chaney's motion for continuance and proceeded with Chaney and Bennett's sentencing hearing.
{¶9} Following the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an aggregate, indefinite sentence of 20 to 22.5 years of incarceration on Chaney and Bennett, with 15 years of mandatory time on the firearm specifications. In April 2023, Chaney filed a pro se notice of and motion for a delayed appeal. This court granted Chaney's motion and appointed appellate counsel, who filed a brief on Chaney's behalf.
{¶10} In his sole assignment of error, Chaney argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to continue the sentencing hearing. Chaney asserts that a continuance was necessary for new counsel to properly advise him on a potential request to withdraw his guilty plea and to gather additional information relevant to sentencing including his education, medical, and Children and Family Services records. Chaney claims that the denial of his continuance prevented new counsel from effectively representing him, violating his right to be represented by counsel of his choice. Chaney further argues that any delay would have been minimal and the denial effectively eliminated his opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial