State v. Miller
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Miller, 2003-Ohio-7243.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR GREENE COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO : Plaintiff-Appellee vs. : : C.A. CASE NO. 03CA2 T.C. CASE NO. 02CR355 KATRINKA MILLER: (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 31st day of December, 2003. . . . . . . . . . William F. Schenck, Pros. Attorney; Robert K. Hendrix, Asst. Pros. Attorney, 45 N. Detroit Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385, Atty. Reg. No. 0037351 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee Thomas G. E. Mathewson, 987 U.S. Route 35 East, Xenia, Ohio 45385, Atty. Reg. No. 0067048 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant . . . . . . . . . GRADY, J. {¶1} Defendant, Katrinka Miller, appeals from her conviction and sentence for possessing crack cocaine. {¶2} Defendant Crack Cocaine. offense on was indicted R.C. 2925.11(A). September 6, 2002. on one count of Possessing Defendant pled guilty to that The trial court sentenced Defendant on October 14, 2002 to seven months imprisonment. {¶3} file a On February 18, 2003, we granted Defendant leave to delayed appeal. Thereafter, Defendant s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, stating that he could not find any meritorious issues for appellate review. We notified Defendant of her appellate counsel s representations and afforded her ample time to file a pro se brief. None has been received. This matter is now ready for decision. {¶4} In his Anders brief appellate counsel has identified two potential issues for appeal which we shall address. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {¶5} trial In order counsel, to demonstrate Defendant must ineffective demonstrate assistance that of counsel s performance was deficient (fell below an objective standard of reasonable representation), and that Defendant was prejudiced by counsel s performance (there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel s Defendant s trial unprofessional or proceeding errors, would have the result been of different.) Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136. {¶6} At the sentencing hearing Defendant complained about her trial counsel s performance, claiming that he failed to meet with her, that he advised her that she had no choice but to plead guilty, and that he promised she would receive probation in exchange for her guilty plea. The record fails to support these allegations. {¶7} An examination of the plea proceeding demonstrates that Defendant repeatedly told the trial court that she was completely Defendant satisfied acknowledged with that defense counsel counsel s answered all services. of her questions and informed her of her constitutional rights and the significance of entering a plea of guilty. Defendant told the court that she was entering her guilty plea voluntarily and that nobody, guilty. including defense counsel, was forcing her to plead Defendant acknowledged that the only promise made to her was contained in the plea agreement, that in exchange for her guilty plea the State would not oppose community control sanctions. Furthermore, Defendant understood that the trial court was not bound by that plea agreement, and that she could receive up to one year in prison. {¶8} The record before us contains no evidence of deficient performance by defense counsel, much less resulting prejudice to Defendant. Ineffective assistance of counsel has not been hearing that demonstrated. Involuntary Plea {¶9} Defendant alleged at her sentencing defense counsel had forced her to plead guilty by repeatedly telling her that she had no other choice because the drugs were found in her home and she had no witnesses. statements at the plea hearing Defendant s own affirmatively refute this involuntariness claim. {¶10} Defendant told the trial court that no one, including her counsel, was forcing her to plead guilty. She also told the court that she was completely satisfied with defense counsel s representation. There is no evidence of coercion which even remotely suggests that Defendant s guilty plea was the product of anything other than her own free will. Furthermore, an examination of the plea proceeding reveals that the trial court fully complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) in accepting Defendant s plea, and that Defendant understood the charges, the effect of her plea, the rights she was waiving, and that she might be sentenced to up to one year imprisonment. {¶11} In addition to the potential errors raised by appellate counsel, we have conducted an independent review of the trial court s proceedings and have found no error having arguable merit. Accordingly, Defendant s appeal is without merit and the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. BROGAN, J. and YOUNG, J., concur. Copies mailed to: Robert K. Hendrix, Esq. Thomas G.E. Matthewson, Esq. Hon. J. Timothy Campbell
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
