The Akron Legal News

Motion to correct sentence denied home invader

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 29, 2014

The judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas was recently affirmed by a panel of judges in the 11th District Court of Appeals, denying a defendant’s motion to correct his sentence.

Case summary states that Daniel Rachel’s conviction stemmed from a home invasion that took place on Oct. 26, 2006. Rachel and another man entered the home of a 72-year-old woman without permission.

The woman attempted to run for her safety but Rachel and his accomplice grabbed her, duct-taped her and demanded money.

The woman’s son caught the intruders in the act and stabbed them with a pocket knife. Rachel’s accomplice then struck the son in the head with a metal object.

Meanwhile, the woman was able to free herself from the duct tape and she proceeded to chase the accomplice around the house with a broom.

In the end, the two robbers fled. The victims suffered some broken bones from the attack.

Rachel was indicted on two counts of felonious assault, one count of aggravated burglary, kidnapping and aggravated robbery.

He pleaded guilty, waived a pre-sentence investigation and was ordered to serve consecutive sentences for an aggregate term of 16 years in prison.

In 2011, Rachel filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal which was denied. He subsequently filed a pro se motion to correct sentence which was denied by the trial court and became the subject of his most recent appeal.

Rachel contended that the trial court erred in failing to merge his kidnapping and robbery offenses.

“In State v. Johnson, the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the current standards for determining whether merger is apposite, holding that, ‘when determining whether two offenses are allied offenses of similar import subject to merger under R.C. 2941.25, the conduct of the accused must be considered,’” wrote Presiding Judge Timothy Cannon on behalf of the court of appeals.

In making such a determination, a court is required to consider whether it is possible to commit the offenses by the same conduct and, if so, whether they were, in fact, committed as one act with a single state of mind.

“Although on appeal, (Rachel) does not cite to Johnson, he is trying to avail himself of a retroactive application of the analysis espoused in Johnson,” wrote Judge Cannon.

Rachel, however, was sentenced prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson and since his conviction was final, he could not rely on that holding in his appeal.

“Additionally, this court has continually held that when an appellant does not raise the issue of allied offenses of similar import in a timely direct appeal, the challenge is barred by the doctrine of res judicata,” wrote Judge Cannon.

Rachel also argued that his trial counsel was ineffective when he “induced” him to accept a plea agreement by promising him a five- to eight-year term of incarceration.

To bolster his argument, Rachel attached a letter that his trial counsel sent to the prosecuting attorney during plea negotiations stating that his client “would be willing to plead guilty in exchange for a sentence of five to eight years.”

The appellate panel’s review of the record, however, revealed that Rachel stated during a colloquy that, despite his sentence, he was satisfied with his trial counsel.

“The record indicates that appellant was aware that, in exchange for a guilty plea, he would receive a 16-year term of incarceration,” Judge Cannon wrote.

Rachel had also signed a form outlining his potential sentences and signed a written agreement which explicitly stated that Rachel understood that the trial court would impose consecutive sentences.

In light of the information contained in the record, the appellate panel affirmed the judgment of the Trumbull County court.

Judges Colleen O’Toole and Diane Grendell joined Judge Cannon to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Rachel, 2014-Ohio-2891.

[Back]