Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Laury

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Stark

July 23, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
DIMITRIUS SHAWN LAURY Defendant-Appellant

          Criminal appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2016CR1823

          For Plaintiff-Appellee, JOHN D. FERRERO, Stark County Prosecutor, N.W. BY: KRISTINE W BEARD

          For Defendant-Appellant, AARON KOVALCHIK

          Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. William B. Hoffman, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

          OPINION

          Gwin, P.J.

         {¶1} Appellant Dimitrius Shawn Laury ["Laury"] appeals his conviction and sentence after a negotiated guilty plea in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas.

         Facts and Procedural History

         {¶2} On May 23, 2016, at approximately 5:00 a.m. Laury broke into the home of A.F., an eighty-four year old woman. A.F. was asleep in her bed. Laury climbed on top of her, hit her in the side of the head, grabbed and pulled down her pants and attempted to rape her. A.F. fought back and Laury fled from the scene.

         {¶3} Fingerprints and evidence collected from the scene matched Laury. Upon his arrest, Laury admitted that he had tried to rape an elderly person.

         {¶4} Laury was indicted for one count of aggravated burglary and one count of attempt to commit rape. Laury pled not guilty at his arraignment.

         {¶5} Laury's counsel filed a Motion for Pleas of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity and a Motion for a Competency Evaluation. The Court ordered that Laury be examined for his competency to stand trial and his mental condition at the time of the offense.

         {¶6} Dr. Lynn A. Luna-Jones from the Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic performed the court ordered evaluations and submitted a written report of her findings. Dr. Jones found that Laury was able to understand the legal proceedings and capable of assisting in his own defense. Dr. Jones also found that at the time of the offense Laury may have been suffering from a mental health disease but was able to comprehend the wrongfulness of his behaviors, thereby disqualifying him to enter a not guilty by reason of insanity plea.

         {¶7} The court scheduled a competency and sanity evaluation hearing. At the hearing, Laury's attorney, having been provided with Dr. Jones' written reports and conclusions, stipulated to Laury's competency evaluation and withdrew his motion for a not guilty by reason of insanity plea. Counsel also stated that he understood, and had advised his client, that voluntarily being under the influence of an illegal substance at the time of the offense, was not a factor to be considered in a not guilty by reason of insanity plea.

         {¶8} The court then addressed the defendant personally and asked if he had an opportunity to review the reports and if he understood the findings. Laury responded in the affirmative. He was then asked if he had any questions to which he responded, "No." The court asked if Laury was willing to stipulate to the reports to which he responded, "Yes."

         {¶9} The Court acknowledged receipt and review of the Dr. Jones' evaluations, accepted Laury's stipulations and found Laury competent to stand trial. The reports were admitted into evidence and sealed by the court.

         {¶10} On October 5, 2016, Laury entered a negotiated plea to the charges in the indictment (Case No. 2017CR1063) and to additional charges set forth in a separate bill of information. The bill of information included charges for one count of aggravated burglary and one count of attempt to commit rape (Case No. 2017CR1823)[1]. After accepting Laury's pleas, the court sentenced Laury as follows. In Case No. 2016CR1063, 3 years on the charge of aggravated burglary and 6 years on the attempted rape, each count was ordered to be served consecutively. In case No. 2016CR1823, 3 years on the charge of aggravated burglary and 6 years on the attempted rape, with the counts to run consecutively. The Court further ordered the sentence in Case No. 2016CR1063 and Case No. 2016CR1823 to run consecutive with each other for a total aggregate consecutive 18-year sentence.

         Assignments of Error

         {¶11} Laury raises two assignment of error, {¶12} "I. APPELLANT WAS DENIED HIS RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND OF ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 10 AND 16 OF THE 01110 CONSITUTION, BECAUSE HIS TRIAL COUNSEL PROVIDED INEFFECTIVE ASSITANCE."

         {¶13} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ORDERING APPELLANT TO SERVE CONSECUTIVE SENTNECES."

         I.

         {¶14} In this assignment of error, Laury argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a second competency and sanity evaluation. Laury argues that a second evaluation was necessary to address Laury's mental health and drug abuse issues.

         STANDARD OF ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.