Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga
Appeal from the Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
2015 C 000240.
R. Flaiz, Geauga County Prosecutor, and Nicholas A. Burling,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Courthouse Annex, (For
Katherine E. Rudzik, (For Defendant-Appellant).
R. WRIGHT, J.
Appellant, Debari Q. Johnson, appeals the trial court's
sentencing entry following his guilty plea. We affirm.
In February 2016, Johnson was indicted and charged with nine
offenses. He initially pleaded not guilty, but later pleaded
not guilty by reason of insanity. His evaluation, however,
opined that he was not legally insane at the time of the
In July 2016, Johnson pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery
with a gun specification, kidnapping, and having a weapon
under a disability. The remaining charges were dismissed. The
trial court sentenced him to a total of seventeen years in
His sole assignment of error asserts:
"The defendant received ineffective assistance of
The U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (1984), established the
two-prong test for courts to employ upon assessing
ineffective assistance of counsel claims: "[T]he
defendant must [first] show that counsel's representation
fell below an objective standard of reasonableness."
Id. at 687-688. "[Second, t]he 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. A reasonable
probability is a probability sufficient to undermine
confidence in the outcome." Id. at 694;
State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373
(1989) paragraphs two and three of the syllabus.
Reviewing courts are to "indulge a strong presumption
that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of
reasonable professional assistance, " and we must
"judge the reasonableness of counsel's challenged
conduct on the facts of the particular case, viewed as of the
time of counsel's conduct." Strickland, 466
U.S. at 689-690.
Johnson first alleges he was denied the effective assistance
of counsel based on his attorney's unclear explanation of
the potential penalties he faced and since his counsel
intimated that the state would recommend concurrent
sentences. As a result of the charged deficiencies, Johnson
states his plea was not entered knowingly.
However, these allegations are not based on evidence in the
record, and as such, are improperly raised in a direct
appeal. State v. Rodriguez, 12th Dist. Butler No.
2001-04-077, 2002-Ohio-3978, ¶34, citing State v.
Gibson, 69 Ohio App.2d 91, 95, 430 N.E.2d 954 (1980).
Instead, allegations based on evidence outside the record
must be brought in a proceeding for postconviction relief.
Furthermore, contrary to Johnson's claims that he was
misled or confused as to the potential penalties he faced,
the record shows otherwise. Johnson's written guilty plea
sets forth the potential penalty range for each of the
offenses and the firearm specification to which he pleaded
guilty. It likewise states that no promises were made to him
that are not in the written plea agreement. It also ...