Youngstown Daily Legal News

Appellate court rejects man’s appeal of his sixth drunk driving conviction

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: March 8, 2016

In the 12th District Court of Appeals, a panel of three judges recently overruled the appeal of a habitual drunk driver who was convicted of aggravated vehicular assault.

The defendant, Craig Bush, appealed from the judgment of the Clermont County Court of Common Pleas where he pleaded guilty to the assault charge and OVI.

Bush was indicted in October 2014 on three counts each of aggravated vehicular assault and vehicular assault and two counts of OVI and he initially pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.

The state alleged that Bush was driving drunk when he rear-ended a vehicle driven by 22-year-old Haylie Schott as she was on her way home from the mall.

Schott’s car, in turn, hit the vehicle in front of her which was driven by Robert and Mariena Johns.

The Johnses suffered minor injuries but Schott was paralyzed from the waist down.

At the hospital after the accident, Bush’s blood was tested and revealed an alcohol content of 0.24, three times the legal limit in Ohio. He had five previous OVI convictions.

After his insanity plea, Bush was found competent to stand trial in two separate psychiatric evaluations.

The defense then moved for a change of venue, arguing that Schott who was well known and liked within the community, would prevent Bush from receiving a fair trial. The motion was denied.

Eventually, Bush entered into a plea agreement with the state, entering guilty pleas to two counts of aggravated vehicular assault and one count of OVI in exchange for a seven-year mandatory prison sentence.

On appeal to the 12th District court, however, Bush claimed that his plea was not voluntary and that he was forced to plead guilty due to the circumstances surrounding his case.

“Appellant first argues his guilty plea was involuntary because while he was competent to stand trial, he is incapable of handling his own legal affairs,” Presiding Judge Michael Powell wrote on behalf of the court of appeals.

The appellate panel pointed out that Bush was found competent to stand trial and that included a finding that he was competent to enter a plea.

“The record shows that appellant was given a full hearing in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) before entering his plea,” Powell wrote. “At the plea hearing, the trial court conducted an extensive inquiry of appellant to ensure he understood the charges against him and all of the penalties he faced, the effect of his guilty plea, and the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty.”

Bush also argued that he had no choice but to plead guilty because the media attention surrounding the case would have made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.

Additionally, he claimed that his history with the trial judge and other Clermont County judges made it impossible for them to remain impartial.

Again, the court of appeals found no merit to Bush’s claims.

“There is no evidence in the record that the pretrial publicity would have prevented appellant from receiving a fair trial,” Powell wrote. “Therefore, appellant’s conclusion as to the impact of the pretrial publicity on prospective jurors is pure speculation.”

With regard to the judicial situation, Bush pointed out that he had worked for a contractor that did work on one of the judge’s homes and that the judge had seen him drink beer with his coworkers and then drive.

Another judge was familiar with Bush’s criminal history and his work as a confidential informant and a third judge had represented Bush in previous criminal matters.

Yet a fourth county judge “is tainted through his association with the other three judges,” according to Bush.

“Contrary to appellant's argument on appeal, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the trial judge harbored any bias toward appellant or that the trial judge's familiarity with appellant and his past as a confidential informant and construction worker affected the trial court's ability to be fair and impartial,” Powell wrote. “On the contrary, the record of the plea hearing reflects that the trial judge treated all parties and counsel with respect and impartiality.”

Bush also argued that his plea was invalid because his relationship with his attorney was “strained.” But the appellate panel noted that the Constitution “does not guarantee rapport or a meaningful relationship between client and counsel,” rather, it only grants a defendant the effective assistance of a qualified professional.

“In light of the foregoing, we find that appellant’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered,” Powell concluded.

Judges Robert Ringland and Robert Hendrickson concurred.

The case is cited State v. Bush, 2016-Ohio-551.

[Back]