[Cite as State v. Porter,
2014-Ohio-2680.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vsCase No. 13CA89
RICKY PORTER
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2013CR0329D
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 16, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JAMES J. MAYER, JR. ROBERT GOLDBERGER
Prosecuting Attorney 10 West Newlon Place
Richland County, Ohio Mansfield, Ohio 44902
By: John C. Nieft
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
38 South Park Street
Mansfield, Ohio 44902
Richland County, Case No. 13CA89 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Ricky Porter appeals his conviction and sentence
entered by the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee is the state
of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} On May 12, 2013, officers from the Mansfield Police Department
responded to a call at The Woods Apartment Complex located at 944 Woodville Road in
Mansfield. Appellant's mother called the police due to Appellant's being drunk and
angry.
{¶3} Upon the officers' arrival, they searched unsuccessfully for Appellant in the
apartment building and on the grounds of the complex. The officers photographed
damage allegedly done by Appellant to the property. During this time, a neighbor's
daughter visited with Appellant's mother to calm her down.
{¶4} After the officers left the premises, Appellant returned, banging and
kicking at the door. The neighbor's daughter called the police. Officers were again
dispatched to the apartment complex. Officers Dittrich and McKinley of the Mansfield
Police Department responded and searched the laundry room. They found Appellant
hiding behind pipes next to a furnace. Appellant refused to come out. Officer McKinley
testified he could smell the odor of alcohol on Appellant's person. Appellant had slurred
speech, glassy eyes and an agitated attitude. The officers attempted to extract
Appellant from the premises, but Appellant broke free and became violent. Appellant
punched Officer Dittrich in the jaw and clawed his face and left eye.
Richland County, Case No. 13CA89 3
{¶5} Another officer came to the aid of Officers Dittrich and McKinley, helping
to tackle Appellant. Appellant was eventually handcuffed, while yelling obscenities at
the officers. Appellant continued to cuss and threaten the officers. At the jail, he threw
a punch at a corrections officer.
{¶6} Officer Dittrich's injuries included a swollen left eye, left jaw, and scratches
on his cheek. He also suffered a shoulder injury. Officer McKinley had a torn uniform
and some bruising.
{¶7} As a result of the incident, Appellant was indicted on one count of assault
of a police officer, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), a felony of the fourth degree.
{¶8} The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Appellant was found guilty of the
charge, and sentenced to eighteen months incarceration and restitution.
{¶9} Appellant appeals, assigning as error:
{¶10} "I. APPELLANT LACKED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
{¶11} "II. THE COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPT
TO IMPEACH WITNESS FRANCE."
I.
{¶12} In the first assignment of error, Appellant maintains he was denied the
effective assistance of trial counsel.
{¶13} To succeed on a claim of ineffectiveness, a defendant must satisfy a two-
prong test. Initially, a defendant must show that trial counsel acted incompetently. See,
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984). In assessing such
claims, “a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within
the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the defendant must
Richland County, Case No. 13CA89 4
overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action ‘might
be considered sound trial strategy.’ “
Id. at 689, citing Michel v. Louisiana,
350 U.S. 91,
101,
76 S.Ct. 158 (1955).
{¶14} “There are countless ways to provide effective assistance in any given
case. Even the best criminal defense attorneys would not defend a particular client in
the same way.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. The question is whether counsel acted
“outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.”
Id. at 690.
{¶15} Even if a defendant shows that counsel was incompetent, the defendant
must then satisfy the second prong of the Strickland test. Under this “actual prejudice”
prong, the defendant must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694.
{¶16} Appellant maintains his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to introduce
statements of Appellant's mother stating, "They are beating up my baby."
{¶17} At trial, the defense averred the Mansfield Police Department, Officer
Dittrich in particular, retaliated against Appellant for a complaint he had lodged against
the Mansfield Police Department six months previous.
{¶18} Upon review of the record, we find Appellant has not demonstrated how
the statements made by his mother would have affected the outcome of the trial.
Specifically, Appellant has not demonstrated a reasonable probability, but for the
alleged error of trial counsel, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
{¶19} Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
Richland County, Case No. 13CA89 5
II.
{¶20} In the second assigned error, Appellant maintains the trial court erred in
denying his attempt to impeach a witness. Specifically, Appellant asserts Witness
Walter France had become a hostile witness in Appellant's attempt to demonstrate
police misconduct, and the trial court erred in not allowing counsel to refresh the
witness' recollection.
{¶21} At trial herein, the following exchange occurred on the record,
{¶22} "Q. What did it sound like?
{¶23} "A. It sounded like somebody was tearing up the place.
{¶24} "Q. Okay. The guy laying on the floor, was he acting in an aggressive
manner in any way?
{¶25} "A. No, he was laying still, had his face down.
{¶26} "Q. Was this at the end of all the noise, was the noise over at that point?
{¶27} "A. Yeah.
{¶28} "Q. So you never saw what was happening in there?
{¶29} "A. No, no.
{¶30} "Q. Do you remember a discussion we had on the phone a few weeks
ago?
{¶31} "A. I talked to a lot of people since I talked to you, Mr. Cockley. I can't say
that I do.
{¶32} "Q. A discussion where you indicated - -
{¶33} "MS. COUCH-PAGE: Objection, Your Honor.
{¶34} "THE COURT: Sustained.
Richland County, Case No. 13CA89 6
{¶35} "Q. From the time you heard the big boom on the wall, that knocked the
pictures off, to when the officer left and the people left, how much time do you think
elapsed?
{¶36} "A. Not really sure. I was more concerned with my mother. When I found
out she wasn't in any danger I pretty much went back in the apartment and continued to
make sure she was okay. Not really sure.
{¶37} "MR. COCKLEY: Nothing further. Thank you."
{¶38} Tr. at 257-258.
{¶39} Evidence Rule 607(A) reads,
{¶40} "(A) Who may impeach
{¶41} "The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party except that the
credibility of a witness may be attacked by the party calling the witness by means of a
prior inconsistent statement only upon a showing of surprise and affirmative damage.
This exception does not apply to statements admitted pursuant to Evid. R. 801(D)(1)(a),
801(D)(2), or 803."
{¶42} Appellant's counsel attempted to impeach his witness with a prior
inconsistent statement to counsel. Appellant's counsel did not claim surprise or
affirmative damage. Appellant's counsel continued with questioning of France. The
witness testified he did not see the events taking place in the hall, but only heard the
noise. Assuming arguendo, the trial court erred in prohibiting Appellant to impeach his
own witness by means of a prior inconsistent statement, we find Appellant has not
demonstrated prejudice as a result of the alleged error. Accordingly, we find the trial
court's alleged error would be harmless.
Richland County, Case No. 13CA89 7
{¶43} Appellant's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶44} Appellant's conviction and sentence entered by the Richland County Court
of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Farmer, J. and
Baldwin, J. concur
Richland County, Case No. 13CA89 8
