State v. Edward Julious
| Decision Date | 05 December 1996 |
| Docket Number | 96CA2409,96-LW-4776 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. EDWARD JULIOUS, Defendant-Appellant Case |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Kenneth R. Spiert, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.
William E. Breyer, Assistant Special Prosecutor, Cincinnati, Ohio for Appellee.
DECISION
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Scioto County Common Pleas Court which found that Edward Julious, defendant below and appellant herein, did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellant assigns the following errors for our review:
The record reveals the following facts which are pertinent to this appeal. The appellant was indicted on nine counts of criminal activity arising out of the 1993 prison riot at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. In July of 1994, David Campbell was appointed to represent the appellant. Before trial, Campbell advised the court that the appellant wanted another attorney. The appellant told the court that he felt that Campbell was not prepared for trial. Specifically, the appellant claimed he was dissatisfied because Campbell had failed to bring him to a pretrial conference, discuss the case with him, obtain a polygraph test for him and get records from his accuser. The appellant's request was denied.
About halfway through the voir dire examination, the appellant approached the prosecutor by himself about entering into a plea agreement Campbell, the appellant and the prosecutor then entered into plea negotiations. The appellant eventually entered a plea of guilty to a single charge of felonious assault.
The appellant appealed his guilty plea to this court. The appellant argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred in not making a sufficient inquiry into the reasons for appellant's request for substitute counsel. This court agreed with the appellant and remanded this case "for a recorded hearing and determination of whether the relationship of Julious and Campbell had any realistic bearing upon the voluntariness of the plea of guilty to the single count of felonious assault." State v. Julious (Nov. 13, 1995), Scioto App. No. 94CA2276, unreported.
The trial court held such a hearing on January 16, 1996. The appellant testified that Campbell had not spoken with him enough to be prepared for trial. According to the appellant Campbell only visited him twice in prison and made one phone call to him and never informed the appellant of his trial date. The appellant claimed that Campbell did not discuss trial strategies, witnesses or discovery with him. Also, the appellant testified that Campbell failed to review the indictment, pretrial motions or sentencing consequences with him.
The trial prosecutor then testified as to his pre-trial contact with Campbell. This contact included discovery meetings Campbell then testified as to his trial preparations. He stated that he met with the defendant several times, filed several pre-trial motions, obtained discovery and subpoenaed prison records. He also claimed that the appellant had told him that he did not want to call any witnesses on his behalf.
On the same day, the trial court denied the appellant's motion. The trial court concluded in its entry that Campbell was thoroughly prepared to try the case and the defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. This appeal follows.
For purposes of analytical clarity, we will consider the appellant's second assignment of error first. In his second assignment of error, the appellant submits that the trial court failed to make the proper inquiry at the hearing on remand. Specifically, the appellant claims that the trial court erroneously focused on whether or not Campbell was prepared, rather than whether there was a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship of such magnitude as to jeopardize appellant's right to effective assistance of counsel.
To discharge a court-appointed attorney, a defendant must show a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship of such magnitude as to jeopardize the defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel. State v. Coleman (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 286, paragraph four of the syllabus. We will not reverse a trial court's decision on such matters unless we find an abuse of discretion. Id. at 292. An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment, it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. State v. Lessin (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 487, 494.
The focus of the hearing should be on the extent of the conflict between the parties, not on the competence of the attorney. United States v. Walker (C.A. 9, 1990), 915 F. 2d 480. If there is a total lack of communication and cooperation between the attorney and the client, even the most competent attorney would not be able to effectively represent the client. However, while the parties' relationship is the most important factor, there should also be an inquiry as to what trial preparations were actually done by the attorney in question. There must be a legitimate reason...
To continue reading
Request your trial