State v. Legg

• Citation: 63 N.E.3d 424
• Decision Date: 10 February 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14CA23.,14CA23.
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Jordan J. LEGG, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

63 N.E.3d 424

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Jordan J. LEGG, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 14CA23.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Pickaway County.

Feb. 10, 2016.

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Sheryl Trzaska, Assistant Ohio Public Defender, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.

Judy C. Wolford, Pickaway County Prosecutor, and Heather MJ Armstrong, Pickaway County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Circleville, Ohio, for Appellee.

ABELE, J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Pickaway County Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence. The court found Jordan J. Legg, defendant below and appellant herein, guilty of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B) and sentenced appellant to serve twenty years to life in prison. Appellant assigns the following errors for review:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT FAILED TO APPOINT A GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR JORDAN LEGG AT HIS TRANSFER PROCEEDINGS, IN VIOLATION OF R.C. 2151.281(A) AND JUV.R. 4(B).”

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT FOUND PROBABLE CAUSE THAT JORDAN COMMITTED A CATEGORY ONE OFFENSE AND TRANSFERRED HIS CASE FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16, OHIO CONSTITUTION.”

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT TRANSFERRED JORDAN LEGG'S CASE TO CRIMINAL COURT BECAUSE THE MANDATORY TRANSFER PROVISIONS IN R.C. 2152.10(A)(1)(a) AND R.C. 2152.12(A)(1)(a)(i) ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN VIOLATION OF A CHILD'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16, OHIO CONSTITUTION.”

FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“JORDAN LEGG WAS TRANSFERRED TO ADULT COURT AND CONVICTED OF AGGRAVATED MURDER IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS, AS GUARANTEED BY THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEEN AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, OHIO CONSTITUTION.”

FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“THE JUVENILE COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR WHEN IT TRANSFERRED JORDAN LEGG'S CASE TO CRIMINAL COURT BECAUSE THE MANDATORY TRANSFER PROVISIONS IN R.C. 2152.10(A)(1)(a) and 2152.12(A)(1)(a)(i) VIOLATE A CHILD'S RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION AS GUARANTEED BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 2, OHIO CONSTITUTION.”

SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

“JORDAN LEGG WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND

ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 9 AND 10, OHIO CONSTITUTION.”

{¶ 2} On March 30, 2014, Thomas Whitson's body was discovered in his home. He had been shot in the head. A subsequent investigation revealed that seven weapons had been stolen from Whitson's home. Law enforcement officers later learned that Whitson's grandson, Shaun Lawson, along with appellant and others, had stolen the weapons. They further learned that Lawson shot Whitson.

{¶ 3} Appellant, who was seventeen years of age, was charged with delinquency for committing several offenses that would constitute felonies if an adult committed them: (1) aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) ; (2) theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A) ; (3) aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) ; (4) aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B) ; (5) murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) ; and (6) murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B).

{¶ 4} On April 7, 2014, the state filed a motion to transfer the aggravated murder and murder charges for prosecution in common pleas court and on April 24, 2014, the trial court held a hearing to consider the state's request. Pickaway County Sheriff's Detective John Strawser testified that on March 31, 2014, law enforcement officers discovered appellant sleeping in the basement of a home where his friend, Shaun Lawson, had been staying. After a search of the basement, law enforcement officers recovered three of the weapons that had been stolen from the victim's home. Appellant was taken into custody and, during subsequent interviews, Detective Strawser learned that appellant had struck the victim “with a stick type object and he was there and helped carry out the weapons.”

{¶ 5} Pickaway County Sheriff's Detective Rex Emrick testified that before he interviewed appellant, he called appellant's mother. Detective Emrick explained that appellant's mother “indicated that * * * she's been having some problems with [appellant] and that [appellant] would probably lie to us.” She further advised Detective Emrick that appellant ran away from home and had been missing for approximately three months. Detective Emrick obtained appellant's mother's consent to interview appellant.

{¶ 6} Detective Emrick stated that appellant initially denied being involved in stealing the weapons or murdering the victim. Detective Emrick explained that after his initial interview with appellant, he spoke with Shaun Lawson. The detective stated that Lawson indicated that appellant had been involved in committing the offenses.

{¶ 7} Detective Emrick also interviewed appellant a second time. This time, appellant admitted that he was at the victim's home when the weapons were stolen and admitted that he struck the victim on the arm with a “walking stick.” Appellant further admitted that he knew before going to the victim's home that the plan was to steal weapons and, that if either Lawson's grandfather (the victim) or father were home, Lawson would kill them. Detective Emrick stated: “The plan was to go in, knock them to the floor, beat them and then as they got the guns as they left, [Lawson] was going to shoot them.” Appellant claimed that he was not inside the house when Lawson shot the victim, but was carrying the weapons to the car when he heard the shots. Detective Emrick concluded that the murder occurred during the commission of a burglary.

{¶ 8} On April 28, 2014, the trial court transferred jurisdiction to the common pleas court for criminal prosecution. The court found that appellant was “seventeen at the time of the conduct charged and that there is probable cause to believe that he committed the acts alleged in the [c]omplaints and that each of such acts, if committed by an adult, would constitute felonies.”

{¶ 9} On May 2, 2014, a Pickaway County Grand Jury returned an indictment that charged appellant with (1) aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) ; (2) aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B) ; (3) murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) ; (4) murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(B) ; (5) aggravated burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.11(A)(1) ; and (6) grand theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1).

{¶ 10} On September 4, 2014, appellant entered a petition to enter a plea of guilty to the aggravated murder charge. The court granted the state's motion to amend the indictment and dismissed the remaining counts. The court then found appellant guilty of aggravated murder, in violation of R.C. 2903.01(B), and sentenced appellant to serve twenty years to life in prison. This appeal followed.

I

{¶ 11} In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred by failing to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect his interests during the transfer proceedings. Specifically, appellant argues that his interests conflicted with his mother's interests, and that R.C. 2151.281(A) and Juv.R. 4(B) required the court to appoint a guardian ad litem. Appellant contends that his mother's statement to Detective Emrick (she had “been having some problems with [appellant] and * * * [appellant] would probably lie to us”) demonstrates that her interests conflicted with appellant's interests. Appellant asserts that the detective's testimony should have prompted the trial court to “recognize its mandatory duty to appoint a guardian ad litem to protect [appellant]'s interests in the proceedings.”

{¶ 12} Initially, we question whether appellant, by pleading guilty, preserved this issue for appeal. A guilty plea constitutes a complete admission of guilt, Crim.R. 11(B)(1), and “ ‘renders irrelevant those constitutional violations not logically inconsistent with the valid establishment of factual guilt and which do not stand in the way of conviction if factual guilt is validly established.’ ” State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, 810 N.E.2d 927, ¶ 78, quoting Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62, 96 S.Ct. 241, 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975), fn.2; accord State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 19. Thus, a defendant who voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently enters a guilty plea “ ‘may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.’ ” Fitzpatrick at ¶ 78, quoting Tollett v.Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). In other words, a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent guilty plea waives any alleged constitutional violations unrelated to the entry of the guilty plea and nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings. State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283, 855 N.E.2d 48, ¶ 105 ; State v. Storms, 4th Dist. Athens No. 05CA30, 2006-Ohio-3547, 2006 WL 1882428, ¶ 9. A guilty plea thus “ ‘effectively waives all appealable errors at trial unrelated to the entry of the plea.’ ” Ketterer at ¶ 105, quoting State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127, 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991), paragraph two of the syllabus. A guilty plea does not, however, “waive a claim that judged on its face the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute.” Menna, 423 U.S. at 63, 96 S.Ct. 241 ; accord State v. Wilson, 58 Ohio St.2d 52, 388 N.E.2d 745, 746 (1979), paragraph one of the syllabus (“While a counseled plea of guilty is an admission of factual guilt which removes issues of factual guilt from the case, a defendant is not...