State v. Lucas
| Decision Date | 23 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 108436,108436 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anthony T. Miranda, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Paul A. Kuzmins, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Charles Lucas brings the instant appeal challenging his convictions for attempted murder, improperly discharging a firearm into a habitation, felonious assault, and breaking and entering. Specifically, appellant argues that he was denied his constitutional rights to counsel and the effective assistance of counsel; his attempted murder conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence; the trial court erred in admitting "other acts" evidence, testimony regarding appellant's cell phone records, and evidence of appellant's prearrest silence; and that the state committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments. After a thorough review of the record and law, this court affirms.
{¶ 2} The instant matter arose from a tumultuous relationship between appellant and the victim in this case, Kimberly Parker. Appellant and the victim met through an online dating website in 2010. They had a long-distance friendship at first. After they met in person, the relationship became romantic.
{¶ 3} The relationship went well for approximately one year, after that it became tumultuous. The victim testified that the relationship "became tumultuous really quickly" based on trust issues. (Tr. 240-241.) She explained, "[t]here was never a point in our relationship that there was not issues, except for the beginning of the relationship." (Tr. 264.)
{¶ 4} The trust issues began when appellant saw an email that the victim received from a male she met on a trip out of the country. The trust issue was a source of stress and problems in their relationship. Appellant often suspected and accused the victim of cheating on him.
{¶ 5} When the turmoil became worse, the victim attempted to end the relationship. The first time, the victim took a train from Cleveland to New Mexico. She eventually returned to Cleveland, however, and apologized for leaving.
{¶ 6} The second time, around 2014 or 2015, the victim drove from Cleveland to Youngstown where she spent the night in a hotel. The following morning, appellant confronted her in the hotel's parking lot, and they returned to Cleveland together.
{¶ 7} The victim explained that appellant tracked her to the hotel using an application, Life360, that enabled him to determine her location whenever her phone was connected to the internet. (Tr. 259.) In addition to the application, appellant had access to the victim's email and Facebook account.
{¶ 8} Appellant and the victim worked in the medical field. The victim worked as a travel nurse, and appellant was a medical consultant, training physicians and nurses on electronic health records. Around 2012 or 2013, the victim began working as a consultant. Appellant and the victim were employed by the same company at one time. They occasionally worked on projects together and worked in the same hospital.
{¶ 9} The victim testified that she finally broke up with appellant in 2016. They were both working on a project in Wisconsin. The victim learned that appellant had changed her schedule, such that they would be working at the same hospital, and appellant would be her direct supervisor on the project. After the first shift, the victim planned to leave the project and return home to Cleveland, where she had a house in Garfield Heights. She changed all of her account passwords so she could book a flight home without appellant's knowledge and to prevent him from tracking her whereabouts.
{¶ 10} The victim flew home and arrived at the Garfield Heights residence on May 24, 2016, between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m. She locked her bedroom door and the door to a "sitting room" outside of her bedroom before going to sleep. Around 9:00 or 9:30 a.m., she heard someone trying to open the door to her bedroom. She recognized appellant's voice, told him to leave, and called 911. The victim informed the dispatcher that there was an intruder in the house, and she identified appellant by name. Appellant continued to bang on the door and attempt to open the door. He became "angry" and "pissed."
{¶ 11} The victim grabbed a 9 mm handgun that appellant kept in a drawer in the bedroom and ordered appellant not to come into the room. He did not comply with her order, and as a result, the victim fired the weapon "in the corner of the door at the — on the floor, on the ground." (Tr. 282.) After firing the gun, the victim called 911 again and advised police she fired the weapon. The police arrived on the scene and arrested her for discharging the gun and domestic violence. (Tr. 283.) The victim was charged in Garfield Heights Municipal Court for her involvement in the May 24, 2016 shooting.
{¶ 12} A pretrial hearing was held on July 5, 2016 in Garfield Heights Municipal Court. The case was dismissed during the pretrial hearing. Appellant was very angry about the dismissal.
{¶ 13} The following day, July 6, 2016, the victim went to sleep around 11:00 p.m. In the middle of the night, the victim woke up to the smell of fire. Her mother, who also lived at the residence, also noticed the smell. Upon further inquiry, the victim did not see any smoke in the house. However, she noticed a bullet hole in the blinds covering her bedroom window. The blinds were also burnt, and some of the blind strands had been blown off. Based on these observations, the victim determined that "someone was shooting" into the residence. (Tr. 296-297.) She got down on the floor of her bedroom and told her mom to do the same.
{¶ 14} The victim called 911, and referenced the Garfield Heights Municipal Court case that had been dismissed to the dispatcher. The victim believed that the shooting was related to the dismissal. She believed that appellant was responsible for firing the shot into the residence. The victim informed the responding officers that she suspected appellant was responsible for the shooting.
{¶ 15} On September 26, 2016, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury returned a five-count indictment charging appellant with (1) attempted murder, a first-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.02 and 2903.02(A) ; (2) improperly discharging into a habitation, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.161(A)(1) ; (3) felonious assault, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) ; (4) breaking and entering, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2911.13(B) ; and (5) domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A). Counts 1, 2, and 3 contained one- and three-year firearm specifications. Appellant was arraigned on February 2, 2017. The trial court declared appellant indigent and assigned counsel to represent him. Appellant pled not guilty to the indictment.
{¶ 16} The pretrial procedural history of this case is extraordinarily extensive. Appellant filed several pro se motions that were denied on the basis that he was represented by counsel. The pro se motions filed by appellant included: (1) a motion to dismiss with prejudice pursuant to Crim.R. 12, filed on May 24, 2017; (2) a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, filed on June 5, 2017; (3) a motion to reassign the case to a new judge, filed on September 1, 2017; (4) a motion to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct, filed on August 31, 2017.
{¶ 17} Because appellant was residing in Florida during pretrial proceedings, several motions to travel were filed by counsel.
{¶ 18} Three of the attorneys that had been assigned to represent appellant were permitted to withdraw from the representation. Appellant ultimately retained his own attorney, who filed a notice of appearance on September 11, 2017.
{¶ 19} Retained counsel represented appellant at trial that commenced on January 16, 2018, after appellant rejected a plea agreement offered by the state. At the close of the state's case, the state dismissed the domestic violence offense charged in Count 5 with prejudice. Defense counsel moved for a Crim.R. 29 judgment of acquittal on the remaining counts. The trial court denied defense counsel's Crim.R. 29 motion.
{¶ 20} Appellant testified on his own behalf. The defense rested and renewed the Crim.R. 29 motion. The trial court denied the renewed motion.
{¶ 21} The jury returned its verdict on January 22, 2018. The jury found appellant guilty on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4. The trial court referred appellant to the probation department for a presentence investigation report and set the matter for sentencing.
{¶ 22} Like the pretrial procedural history, the procedural history in the case after the jury returned its verdict but before sentencing is also extensive. Appellant filed several pro se motions, including, but not limited to (1) motions for a new trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.79 ; (2) a motion for relief from judgment; (3) a motion to issue evidentiary subpoenas on February 7, 2018; (4) judicial notice that appellant terminated his retained counsel and a request for appointment of a new attorney filed on February 12, 2018; (5) several motions to dismiss wrongful convictions under Crim.R. 33(B) based on new exculpatory evidence; and (6) several motions for a new trial.
{¶ 23} The trial court assigned three new attorneys to represent appellant during the post-verdict proceedings. All three attorneys were permitted to withdraw, and appellant was permitted to proceed pro se on September 10, 2018.
{¶ 24} Appellant also filed multiple pro se appeals that were dismissed as untimely or based on appellant's failure to comply with the appellate rules of procedure. State v. Lucas , 8th Dist....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. J.R.
...when considering whether a criminal defendant was denied his or her right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. See State v. Lucas , 2020-Ohio-1602, 154 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.). The court held that there are certain circumstances "that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the co......
-
State v. J.R.
...rights under the Ohio Constitution, we do not separately analyze J.R.'s rights under the United States and Ohio Constitutions here. [9] In Lucas, the claimed that he was denied the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and Cronic due to counsel's animus towards and bias against him. 20......
-
State v. Penland
... ... 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), the United States ... Supreme Court recognized a "narrow exception" to ... the Strickland requirements when considering whether ... a criminal defendant was denied his or her right to counsel ... under the Sixth Amendment. See State v. Lucas, ... 2020-Ohio-1602, 154 N.E.3d 262, ¶ 36 (8th Dist.). The ... court held that there are certain circumstances "that ... are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of ... litigating their effect in a particular case is ... unjustified," such that ineffectiveness and prejudice ... ...
- State v. McLoyd