Login | March 29, 2024

Guilty pleas vacated in Youngstown murder case

TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter

Published: October 22, 2018

A Mahoning County trial judge coerced a defendant into pleading guilty in a Youngstown murder case, the 7th District Court of Appeals has ruled.

The appellate panel reversed and remanded the case of Vincent Reber, who appealed his convictions following guilty pleas to one count each of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery.

The trial court sentenced him to 20 years for the murder count and 11 years for robbery, to run concurrently.

Reber was indicted on Sept. 15, 2016. He claimed he was denied due process and the effective assistance of counsel when the trial court refused to continue to the trial.

On Oct. 14, 2016, the trial court issued a judgment entry stating the appellant “knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to a speedy trial.”

In addition, the trial court granted Reber’s oral motion to continue the trial date to allow the defense more time to prepare.

However, the judgement entry contained two errors – that the original trial date was Oct. 11, 2016 and that the jury trial was to be continued until Nov. 21, 2016.

On Oct. 19, 2016, the state filed a notice of supplemental discovery containing another 19 items that were disclosed to the appellant – including a DVD and audiotaped interviews and jail phone calls. On Nov. 1 of that year, the state filed another notice indicating that three BCI lab reports were available for Reber to review to prepare for his trial. In addition, four potential state witnesses were added to the witness list.

Two weeks later, the state filed a third notice of supplemental discovery containing a BCI lab report.

Reber made an oral motion to continue the trial during a Nov. 16, 2016 pretrial. The state did not oppose the motion, but the trial court denied it.

Meanwhile, two other notices of supplemental discovery were filed by the state.

On the date of the trial, Reber filed a motion to continue, arguing that 60 days had passed between the indictment and trial date. He also alleged his defense attorney did not have enough time to fully advise him on a plea agreement or prepare for trial due to the great amount of discovery filed by the prosecution.

On the date of trial, the state made an offer to dismiss the aggravated burglary charge and all the firearm specifications if Reber pleaded guilty to aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. In exchange, the state would recommend a sentence of 20 years to life.

Defense counsel argued there were multiple pieces of discovery disclosed within a month of trial, and in some cases, just one week. Reber’s attorney told the trial court he wanted to explore pursuing the affirmative defense of duress, and that his client did not fully understand the legal ramifications of such a defense.

The trial court warned Reber: “… The down side for you, if you get nailed with everything, is that you would never get out of prison. That’s what could happen.”

The trial court said the 30-day continuance would be denied because the court had already granted one motion to continue. After a recess, Reber spoke with his attorney for more than two hours and accepted the state’s plea offer.

On appeal, Reber claimed his trial counsel was unprepared to try the case or accurately advise him on a plea offer.

The appellate panel agreed the continuance should have been granted.

“This is not an unreasonable request under the circumstances,” 7th District Judge Gene Donofrio wrote in his opinion. “Appellant was arraigned less than 60 days prior to the trial date, the state disclosed extensive discovery, and the charges at issue carry a potential sentence of life imprisonment.

“… Given the voluminous nature of the discoverable material, counsel has not been able to fully review said material. Counsel has not been able to listen to the jail calls of the co-defendants and counsel certainly hasn’t been able to review said material fully enough to conduct meaningful cross-examinations of witnesses or consider the effect of said evidence on his defense.”

In addition, a continuance would not have inconvenienced the state or any potential witnesses, and the appellant did not contribute to the circumstances leading to his request, Judge Donofrio added.

The panel disagreed with the state’s argument that defense counsel had no facts to indicate he was unprepared for trial.

“Moreover, the jailhouse phone calls that were disclosed potentially affected an affirmative defense appellant was seeking to employ,” Judge Donofrio wrote. “Based on the Sowders six-factor test, the trial court abused its discretion in not granting appellant’s motion to continue trial.”

The 7th District judges also agreed the trial court coerced him into pleading guilty by giving him two options: proceed to trial that day with an unprepared attorney or accept the state’s plea offer.

“Based on these facts and the trial court’s abuse of discretion in failing to grant the continuance, we conclude that appellant did not enter his pleas knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently,” Judge Donofrio stated.

The guilty pleas were vacated and the case was remanded.

Appellate judges Cheryl L. Waite and Carol Ann Robb concurred.

The case is cited State v. Reber, 2018-Ohio-4016.


[Back]