The Akron Legal News

Login | March 29, 2024

Attorneys not ineffective in Medina Cty. child rape case

TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter

Published: October 22, 2021

The 9th District Court of Appeals has once again affirmed a Medina County trial court’s judgment in the case of a defendant charged with multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition involving a minor.
Thomas B. Clark was charged in December 2016 in a 30-count indictment, which included a sexually violent predator specification. Clark, represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to three counts of rape and 10 counts of GSI.
Following Clark’s plea, his counsel filed a motion to withdraw, which was granted. Later, Clark, despite being represented by counsel, began to file several pro se motions, including one seeking to withdraw his plea and one seeking to represent himself.
At a hearing, the trial court told Clark he could not be both represented by counsel and represent himself. The trial court asked Clark to clarify what he wanted to do. Clark indicated he did not want his attorney to represent him. The trial court then told Clark that it would make a determination between then and the time of the next hearing as to whether Clark could represent himself.
Meanwhile, the trial court appointed the attorney who had been representing Clark as his standby counsel. At the beginning of the next hearing, Clark decided to proceed pro se. Ultimately, the trial court denied Clark’s motion to withdraw his plea.
Prior to sentencing, Clark filed a motion for the appointment of counsel, which the trial court granted. Clark was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life in prison.
In his original appeal, Clark argued the trial court failed to obtain a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of counsel from Clark. The 9th District Court of Appeals sustained that assignment of error and remanded the case to the trial court.
On remand, the trial judge recused himself and the matter was reassigned to a different judge. Clark’s counsel argued the appellate court’s remand resulted in the vacation of not only Clark’s sentence but also his plea. The state disagreed, stating the 9th District only vacated Clark’s sentence, making the guilty plea valid. The trial court stated on the record it believed the appellate court vacated only the sentence.
Then, Clark, through counsel, filed a motion to enforce the 9th District’s ruling, which Clark maintained required that the matter be set for trial.
In November 2018, Clark’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw as Clark’s counsel, which was granted. Another attorney was then appointed to represent Clark.
Clark alleged his statutory right to a speedy trial was violated and that the trial court failed to timely dispose of his motion to enforce the appellate court’s decision via a written entry. In his most recent appeal, Clark alleged his trial attorneys provided ineffective assistance.
“Clark points to a lack of jail visits, the failure to file a motion to suppress, and the failure to consult Clark concerning continuances,” 9th District Judge Donna J. Carr wrote in her opinion. “As to the latter two points, Clark has developed no argument in support of those claims, and we disregard them on that basis.”
The appellate court next addressed the allegation of a lack of jail visits.
“Even assuming that former counsel’s performance was deficient, Clark has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by any lack of jail visits by former counsel. If Clark had gone to trial and been convicted of all of the charges and the sexually violent predator specification, Clark was faced with serving a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole,” Judge Carr added. “Because of former counsel’s efforts, Clark, who the record indicates had confessed three times to three different people, was able to plead guilty to a reduced number of charges and was sentenced to a term that provides him the possibility of being released on parole. Thus, Clark’s plea was not without advantages.”
Clark also alleged his post-appeal trial counsel made incoherent arguments, withdrew Clark’s motion to withdraw his plea without consulting him, and failed to argue the defendant’s offenses are allied offenses.
The appellate panel––including judges Jennifer Hensal and Thomas Teodosio––also rejected those allegations. The case is cited State v. Clark, 2021-Ohio-3397.


[Back]