State v. Vales
| Decision Date | 27 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 2019CA00061,2019CA00061 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Christopher VALES, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
JOHN D. FERRERO, Stark County Prosecutor By: RONALD MARK CALDWELL, 110 Central Plaza South, 5th Floor, Canton, OH, 44702, For Plaintiff-Appellee.
BERNARD HUNT, 2395 McGinty Road N.W., North Canton, OH, 44720, For Defendant-Appellant.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Christopher Vales ["Vales"] appeals his conviction and sentence after a jury trial in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶2} In 2018, Vales was charged by indictment with one count of operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them ("OVI"), in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(2), and one count of driving under suspension, in violation of R.C. 4510.11(B). The OVI count was charged as a felony of the third degree because it alleged that Vales had been convicted of OVI five times within the last twenty years. This number was later amended, upon motion of the prosecution, to four prior OVI convictions. As a result of the amendment, the current OVI charge was reduced to a felony of the fourth degree (three prior OVI convictions within the last ten year).
{¶3} The facts presented during Vales' jury trial follow.
{¶4} During the early morning hours of September 4, 2018, around 3:16 a.m., Canton Police Officer Christina Paumier was patrolling her assigned zone and was responding to a domestic call. While proceeding on Sherrick Road in the southeast side of Canton, Paumier noticed a white SUV go up onto the curb and nearly strike several telephone poles. The vehicle would go up and come back down from the curb, and was swerving onto the sidewalk from the roadway. The vehicle was also driving at a slow rate of speed. Having decided that she was going to stop the vehicle, Paumier ran the license plate and found out the license plate was expired and that the registered owner of the vehicle had failed to reinstate his driver's license, meaning his license was suspended. With this information, as well as the erratic driving, Paumier effected a traffic stop of the vehicle.
{¶5} After making the stop, Paumier approached the driver, wearing her body camera, and determined that he was the registered owner of the vehicle. Vales told the officer that he was looking for "1027" the address of his girlfriend's present location. Paumier asked Vales to step out of his vehicle, and noticed that Vales had slurred speech, which made it difficult for Paumier to understand him, as well as glassy and bloodshot eyes. Paumier also smelled alcoholic beverage from his person and in his vehicle. Vales' pupils appeared to be significantly constricted, all of which led Paumier to believe that Vales was impaired. Paumier next asked Vales if he had consumed any alcohol; Vales said that he had consumed two beers at around 8-9 o'clock. Paumier also asked Vales if he had any medical conditions. After hesitating, Vales replied, "My sugar." Paumier concluded that Vales might be diabetic, and so she asked him if he had checked his sugar levels. Vales replied that he had, and that his levels were good. When Vales was later performing the field sobriety tests, Paumier asked if he had any other medical conditions or physical limitations. Paumier wanted to know if there was any medical reason why Vales could not perform the tests. Vales said that he had plates in both his big toes and in his right wrist.
{¶6} Vales was asked if he would perform the field sobriety tests. The first test was the horizontal nystagmus
test ["HGN"], which tests if there is equal tracking of the eyes. Paumier noted that Vales did not complain of any form of brain injury. Instead of tracking the tip of Paumier's pen, Vales stared ahead; he also followed the pen by moving his head on several occasions. Vales was not able to follow instructions during the test.
{¶7} Paumier next asked Vales to perform the walk-and-turn test ["WAT"], which tested his ability to follow instructions and his balance. Vales could not stand for 26 seconds without losing his balance, and could not walk a straight line.
{¶8} Finally, Paumier asked Vales to perform the one-legged test ["OLS"], which required him to stand straight up and lift one leg up for 30 seconds. Paumier noted that Vales kept swaying while he was standing, and could only keep his leg up for a matter of seconds before losing balance.
{¶9} Based on Vales' performance on these three tests, Paumier concluded that he was under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or a combination of both. Paumier then arrested Vales and impounded his vehicle since it had expired plates, and since the only occupant was being arrested. Officer Paumier asked Vales for identifying information; Officer Paumier noted that Vales got his birthday wrong.
{¶10} As part of police policy, when a vehicle is impounded, an inventory search of that vehicle is performed in order to preserve the contents of the vehicle. During this inventory search of Vales' impounded vehicle, Paumier found numerous medication and prescription bottles (made out to Vales) for opiates, some of which were empty. The labels on several of the prescription bottles for the opiates warned that alcohol should not be consumed while taking the drugs.
{¶11} Paumier transported Vales to the Stark County Jail. On the way, Paumier asked Vales about the prescription bottles. Vales stated that he does not take prescribed medication. Once they reached the jail, Vales was booked as part of standard procedure. Paumier had decided to ask Vales for a urine test instead of a breath test. The breath test does not test for drugs, whereas the urine test can provide for testing of alcohol and drugs. Vales, however, refused once he found out that she was going to test for alcohol and drugs. "No, I won't do it," Vales responded. Vales then stated, "If I refuse, then what...I ain't refusing..." The camera was then turned off.
{¶12} Officer Paumier admitted under cross-examination that her flashlight pointed in the eyes of the Vales could have caused him to have difficulty on the HGN test. Officer Paumier admitted that regulations required the use of a "clue" sheet to mark deviations made by the suspect from the standards; however, she did not use this sheet in Vales' case. Finally, she related that a person with brain damage had the same clues as a person who was intoxicated.
{¶13} Vales testified that he traveled from Cleveland to pick up his girlfriend in Canton, but that he could not find the right street or address. Before long, he noticed that a police cruiser had pulled up right behind him, and soon pulled him over. He originally thought the officer was going to provide him with assistance in finding address, which was on Sherrick Road.
{¶14} Vales testified that he was unable to perform the tests required by the police due to his prior physical and mental injuries. He had extensive brain Injuries
from a beating he sustained in 2000, which was inflicted by an individual with a fire extinguisher. This injury affected his speech and his balance. He is currently in therapy for his slurred speech and he uses a walker to get around. He also has trouble hearing and is required to wear a hearing aid. He has gout, rotator cuff issues from a car accident and takes the pain pills, found in his vehicle for these ailments. Vales admitted that he told Officer Paumier he did not take his medication. He further admitted that he never told Deputy Paumier that he had suffered a traumatic brain injury. Vales testified that any odor of an alcoholic beverage came from the fact that he had drunk non-alcoholic beer earlier.
{¶15} On cross-examination, Vales admitted that taking the prescribed drugs was part of his pain management, but that he did not take any that night since he knew he would be driving. Finally, Vales admitted that he at first refused to take a urine test. (1T. at 241-242).1 However, Vales claimed that he subsequently agreed that he would take the test. (1T. at 229-230; 241-242).
{¶16} The jury found Vales guilty as charged. The trial court thereafter sentenced Vales to an aggregate prison term of 18 months-18 months for the OVI conviction, and a concurrent 180-day sentence for the conviction for driving while under suspension.
{¶17} Vales raises three Assignments of Error,
{¶18} "I. THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
{¶19} "II. THE TRIAL COURT'S FINDING OF GUILTY WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
{¶20}
{¶21} In his First Assignment of Error, Vales argues that he was denied effective assistance of retained trial counsel. Specifically, Vales contends that his trial counsel: 1) did not file a suppression motion; 2) counsel failed to object to the admission of the field sobriety tests; 3) counsel did not present Vale's medical records at trial; 4) counsel did not object to the admission of photos of Vale's prescribed pills; and, 5) counsel did not subpoena witnesses to testify at trial in Vale's defense.
STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW.
{¶22} To obtain a reversal of a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove (1) that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant resulting in an unreliable or fundamentally unfair outcome of the proceeding. Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687–688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984). A defendant's failure to satisfy one prong of the Strickland test negates a court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Newman, 20-CA-44
...counsel. Id. A defendant has no constitutional right to determine trial tactics and strategy of counsel. State v. Vales, 2020-Ohio-245, 143 N.E.3d 577, ¶ 40 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Cowans, 87 Ohio St.3d 68, 72, 717 N.E.2d 298 (1999. Rather, decisions about viable defenses are the exclu......
-
State v. Mets
... ... Codeluppi, 139 Ohio St.3d 165, 2014-Ohio-1574, 10 N.E.3d ... 691, ¶11. Part of the state's burden "includes ... demonstrating what the NHTSA requirements are, through ... competent testimony and/or by introducing the applicable ... portions of the NHTSA manual." State v. Vales, ... 5 th Dist. No. 2019CA00061, 2020-Ohio-245, 143 ... N.E.3d 577, ¶29; quoting State v. Djisheff, ... 11 th Dist. Trumbull No 2005-T-0001, ... 2006-Ohio-6201 ... {¶27} ... Trooper Young testified she conducts the Horizontal Gaze ... Nystagmus test based off the ... ...
-
State v. Williams
...that the defendant believed he was under the influence ofalcohol. State v. Vales, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2019CA00061, 2020-Ohio-245, ¶ 77, 143 N.E.3d 577 citing Maumee v. Anistik, 69 Ohio St.3d 339, 632 N.E.2d 497 (1994). Viewing Piatt's testimony that indicates that Williams may have consumed......