Youngstown Daily Legal News

Conviction affirmed for man who robbed off-duty Cleveland police officer

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: August 7, 2013

The 8th District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas convicting a man who tried to rob an off-duty police officer.

The case originally arose out of an incident that took place on April 26, 2006 when Cleveland Police Officer Dwayne Borders was traveling in his vehicle.

Borders stopped at a private residence and as he exited his vehicle he was approached by Patrick Minifee, who was brandishing a gun and attempting to rob Borders.

A scuffle ensued, during which a number of shots were exchanged.

Officer Borders was shot once in the back but he was treated and released in connection with the injuries.

Minifee was shot in the chest and was found abandoned inside his car at a nearby hospital, where lifesaving measures were performed.

Inside the vehicle, police discovered two firearms underneath the gear box.

The Cuyahoga County Grand Jury subsequently released a multi-count indictment charging Minifee with kidnapping, attempted murder, two counts of felonious assault, two counts of aggravated robbery, discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises, carrying a concealed weapon, improperly handling firearms in a motor vehicle and tampering with evidence.

Most of the counts included one and three-year firearm specifications and all included forfeiture of weapons specifications.

Minifee originally entered a not guilty plea but withdrew it on Sept. 26, 2012.

In exchange for pleading guilty to all of the charges listed in the indictment, including all of the specifications, the state agreed to recommend a 19 1/2-year sentence.

Prior to his sentencing hearing, however, Minifee requested to withdraw his guilty plea, explaining that he was coerced into taking the plea agreement by his attorney, who he argued had only spent two weeks on the case and did not have sufficient time to prepare for trial.

Minifee said he felt pressured by his attorney to enter the plea and that his lawyer did not represent his best interests.

The trial court denied the motion to withdraw along with a request for new counsel and sentenced him to the agreed-upon prison term.

Upon appeal, Minifee presented similar arguments to those he made trial.

He claimed his plea was not knowing and voluntary and therefore, violated Crim.R. 11(C).

Crim.R. 11(C) governs the process by which a trial court must inform a defendant of certain constitutional and nonconstitutional rights before accepting a felony plea of guilty.

“The underlying purpose of Crim.R. 11(C) is to convey certain information to a defendant so that he can make a voluntary and intelligent decision regarding whether to plead guilty,” explained Judge Frank Celebrezze in the opinion he wrote on behalf of the Eighth District.

Before accepting a guilty plea, a trial court must first make certain that the plea is voluntary and the defendant understands all of the possible sanctions.

It must also inform the defendant of the effect of the plea and determine that he understands those consequences.

“A review of the plea hearing transcript in this case supports a determination that appellant understood the nature of the charges against him,” wrote Judge Celebrezze.

Furthermore, the court of appeals found Minifee failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced in any way by his pleas.

“He does not claim that he would not have pleaded guilty if the trial court had defined each element of the offenses,” stated Judge Celebrezze, finding that, without a show of prejudice, Minifee’s argument failed.

Minifee proceeded to argue that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

“In general, a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and liberally granted,” wrote Judge Celebrezze. “It is well established, though, that a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing.”

According to the appellate panel, a trial court is required to hold a hearing in order to determine whether there is a reasonable, legitimate basis for the withdrawal.

Judge Celebrezze wrote that Minifee was represented by competent counsel and was given a full hearing before entering his plea.

“Moreover, our review of the record demonstrates that the trial court gave appellant a complete and impartial hearing on his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea and gave full and fair consideration to the arguments raised in support of his motion.”

Though Minifee claimed his guilty plea was improperly coerced by his defense counsel, the trial and appellate courts found there was no evidence in the record to substantiate his claim.

Ultimately, the appellate panel determined that “a mere change of heart regarding a guilty plea and the possible sentence is insufficient justification for the withdrawal” of the plea.

The court of appeals concluded by overruling all of Minifee’s assignments of error, including allegations that the trial court erred in assessing court costs and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Judges Ellen Gallagher and Mary Kilbane concurred.

The case is cited State v. Minifee, 2013-Ohio-3146.

[Back]