The Akron Legal News

Appeal denied for man who set fire to ex-girlfriend's home

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: February 12, 2016

An attempted arson conviction out of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas was recently affirmed when a court of appeals reviewed the case of Leon Hayes.

A three-judge panel in the 6th District Court of Appeals ruled that Hayes entered valid Alford pleas to two counts of attempted aggravated arson and he was properly sentenced to two concurrent six-year prison terms.

The charges against Hayes stemmed from a Jan. 1, 2014 incident that took place at the home of Hayes’ ex-girlfriend.

That day, the ex-girlfriend hosted a party at her home to which Hayes was not invited but that he still attended.

Case summary states that Hayes arrived already intoxicated or became intoxicated after his arrival and partygoers called the police when he became disruptive.

According to court documents, Hayes left the party but came back later that night and broke a window on the lower level of the house before leaving again.

At 3 a.m. Hayes returned to the home again and proceeded to reach through the broken window, pour a flammable liquid into the house and set the liquid on fire.

The small fire charred the window before going out on its own but the ex-girlfriend saw Hayes standing outside of the window while the incident took place.

At the time, the ex-girlfriend, Hayes’ daughter and two other people were inside the residence.

Hayes was charged with four counts of first-degree felony aggravated arson and one count of fourth-degree arson. He was later charged via information with attempted arson.

The trial court then accepted Hayes’ Alford pleas, in which he admitted the facts of the case but maintained his innocence, to two counts of attempt to commit aggravated arson.

In his direct appeal to the 6th District court, Hayes first claimed that his pleas were not made intelligently, knowingly or voluntarily.

Specifically, he argued that the trial court misled him by making him believe that community control was a likely sentence.

“Appellant argues that based on this belief, he was induced to make an Alford plea,” Judge Stephen Yarbrough wrote in the opinion he authored on behalf of the court of appeals. “Appellant focuses on a hearing held by the trial court on April 28, 2015.”

At that hearing, the trial court informed Hayes of all the possible sanctions that he faced should his case continue to trial. Court documents state that Hayes was facing up to 41 years in prison and $25,000 in fines.

The trial court also stated that it had considered the minimal damage to the home and the fact that no one was injured but it told Hayes, “I’d have to hear more about the facts or the background to indicate whether there would ever be a chance that I would consider community control.”

“During the conversation with appellant, the trial court also clearly states that it is relaying this information to appellant to ensure he understands the plea agreement,” Yarbrough wrote.

At a second hearing, a different judge again informed Hayes of the possible penalties he was facing but did not indicate that community control was a more likely sanction.

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion by accepting appellant’s plea and appellant was not misled by the trial court during the course of several hearings,” Yarbrough wrote. “The trial court merely informed appellant of his rights and the possible consequences if the plea was not accepted.”

Hayes also argued that he would not have entered his pleas had he received effective assistance of counsel.

He stated that his attorney “misrepresented a plea offer” and induced him into accepting it.

“However, appellant’s claims are rebutted by the record,” Yarbrough wrote. “The trial court engaged in a lengthy colloquy with appellant before accepting his Alford plea.”

The appellate panel also noted that Hayes signed a written plea form which stated that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation and that he was not coerced into entering a plea.

In a final assignment of error, Hayes contended that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to terms of imprisonment on both counts of attempted arson.

According to him, the lower court did not make the correct findings before sentencing but the court of appeals found otherwise.

“The trial court stated it considered the factors in R.C. 2929.11 and its sentencing entry also reflected that the factors were considered,” Yarbrough wrote. “The court also considered the presentence report as well as appellant’s previous criminal charges.”

Hayes’ statement to the trial court, the victim’s statement and mitigating factors were all taken into account, the court of appeals held before noting that Hayes’ sentence was “well within statutory limitations and therefore not contrary to law.”

“Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas,” Yarbrough wrote.

Judges Mark Pietrykowski and Thomas Osowik joined Yarbrough to form the majority.

The case is cited State v. Hayes, 2016-Ohio-330.

[Back]