The Akron Legal News

Man's robbery conviction upheld

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 1, 2015

A complicity to aggravated robbery conviction out of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas was recently affirmed by a panel of three judges that reviewed the case of Arlondo Redd.

The 2nd District Court of appeals stated in its opinion on the matter that Redd demonstrated an understanding of the proceedings and that he was provided with effective assistance of counsel.

Redd was indicted with his codefendant, Kayin Pooler, in January 2014 on one count of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.

After the charges were brought, Redd filed a motion to suppress statements that he had made to the police arguing that he was subject to unlawful and coercive custodial interrogation and that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights.

At a hearing on the motion to suppress, Det. Douglas Baker testified that he interviewed Redd and he reviewed a Miranda rights form before asking any questions.

Baker said Redd orally acknowledged that he understood his rights before initialing next to each right listed on the form.

Baker also said he had Redd read and sign a waiver-of-rights section at the bottom of the form.

During the ensuing interview, the detective stated that Redd eventually admitted that he was at the scene of the robbery though he claimed that Pooler was the one with the gun and the one who committed the crime.

Later, Redd claimed the police “tricked” him into admitting that he was at the scene and that, in response to coercive interrogation tactics, he told the detective what he wanted to hear.

At the end of the hearing on the motion to suppress, the trial court denied Redd’s motion on the grounds that Baker complied with all necessary Miranda requirements.

On the issue of whether Redd voluntarily waived his rights, the trial court held that the question was one of credibility and it found the detective’s version of events to be more believable.

Following the hearing, Redd entered into an agreement with the state and pleaded no contest to a bill of information charging him with complicity to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.

He was subsequently sentenced to three years in prison.

On appeal to the 2nd District court, Redd claimed that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the state’s cross-examination of him at the suppression hearing.

According to Redd, the state’s questions exceeded the scope of direct examination which focused only on the times of his police interviews and the questions that the detective asked.

On cross-examination, Redd said the prosecutor asked about whether he had admitted to the robbery and whether he was at the scene of the robbery when it was committed.

“The rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence,” Judge Michael Hall wrote on behalf of the court of appeals. “Even under the normal rules of evidence, in Ohio, cross-examination is not limited to the subject matter of direct examination.”

The appellate panel held that the state’s cross-examination questions arose from Redd’s claim that his statements to police were coerced and so it sought to identify which statements were true, and which were false.

Hall noted that the state’s questions were relevant, therefore, Red’s defense counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to object to admissible evidence. He overruled Redd’s first assignment of error.

In his second argument before the appellate court, Redd claimed his no contest plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. The panel found little to back his claims.

“Before accepting Redd’s plea, the trial court told him everything that Crim.R. 11(C)(2) says a court should tell a defendant,” Hall wrote. “Along the way, Redd asked several questions. The court answered each of his questions until Redd said that he understood.”

Most of Redd’s questions to the court concerned his appeal and he expressed confusion as to why he could not appeal before he was sentenced.

Court documents state that the trial court explained to Redd the difference between a final, appealable judgment and a interlocutory ruling and Redd stated that he understood.

Redd also indicated that he understood the constitutional rights he was giving up by pleading no contest.

Although Redd claimed “I had nothing to do with this crime” after he entered his plea, the court of appeals held that “a defendant cannot rely on post-plea statements or claims of innocence to establish that the trial court erred in accepting (his) plea.”

If Redd wanted to maintain his innocence, the court of appeals held that the proper course of action would have been to file a motion to withdraw his plea.

“The second assignment of error is overruled,” Hall wrote. “The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.”

Presiding Judge Jeffrey Froelich and Judge Mike Fain joined Hall to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Redd, 2015-Ohio-3164.

[Back]