COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70751 STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION VANCE FIELDS : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : MAY 22, 1997 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CR-286172 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, ESQ. JOHN P. PARKER, ESQ. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor The Brownhoist Bldg. MICHAEL D. HORN, ESQ. 4403 St. Clair Avenue Assistant County Prosecutor Cleveland, OH 44103 Justice Center, 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - PATTON, P.J. Defendant-appellant Vance Fields ("defendant") appeals his conviction for murder arguing he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Defendant bases his claim on his attorney's failure to request that an investigator be appointed to assist in the preparation of his defense. Defendant was indicted in a two count indictment on August 25, 1992 for aggravated murder and aggravated burglary. Defendant entered a not guilty plea and was assigned counsel. On December 8, 1992 defendant pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of murder and as a result of a plea bargain the aggravated burglary count was dismissed. Defendant was then sentenced to fifteen (15) years to life in prison. Before the sentencing, the trial court advised defendant of his rights pursuant to Crim.R. 11, telling him he could subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify and if the witnesses did not appear the court could have them arrested. Defendant responded that he understood the rights he was waiving and also that he was satisfied with his attorney's representation. Defendant argues the following as his sole assignment of error: THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN COUNSEL FAILED TO REQUEST AN INVESTIGATOR TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION OF THE DEFENSE IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. - 3 - Defendant argues there was a reasonable factual basis for the appointment of an investigator as evidenced by a "pink slip" which was attached to the trial court file. This "pink slip," defendant claims, indicates the victim's death resulted from an altercation which an investigator would have discovered thereby allowing defendant to present a defense that the murder occurred in the heat of passion. Defendant argues that counsel should have requested that an investigator be appointed so a defense could have been prepared resulting in a conviction for voluntary manslaughter or an acquittal. The state counters by maintaining there are no facts in the record which support defendant's claim that an investigator should have been appointed. Regarding the "pink slip," the state argues it is neither testimony nor physical evidence and should not be considered because it is not a part of the record. To establish a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel a party must meet the requirements of the two prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668. First, defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the "counsel" guaranteed defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is not - 4 - reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction * * * resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Id. In addition, on the issue of counsel's effectiveness, defendant-appellant has the burden of proof, since in Ohio a properly licensed attorney is presumably competent. State v. Lytle (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 391, 397. Defendant claims, based on the "pink slip" which is a county information sheet, counsel should have requested the appointment of an investigator and then presented a defense based on the information on the slip. This "pink slip" is titled "Information For Cuyahoga County Justice System" and other than personal facts about defendant the only other information on the sheet is the following sentence: "During an altercation at 3697 East 147, RALPH ANTHONY GAY was stabbed by VANCE ANTHONY FIELDS in which it caused his death." Defendant had two attorneys present and was given an opportunity to speak with them when he entered his plea of guilty. Defendant knew the facts of the case and because of this it can be inferred that defendant told his attorneys the facts of the case. If either defendant or his attorneys believed an investigator would have assisted defendant in his defense there was ample opportunity to make a request to the court. No such request was made. Defendant admitted he voluntarily and freely entered his plea of - 5 - guilt and by doing so he also admitted the truth of the facts in this case; that he shot and killed the victim. Without more, the information in the "pink slip" simply does not establish that counsel's performance was deficient or any prejudice to defendant resulted from counsel's performance. Therefore, defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails and his sole assignment of error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant's conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PORTER, P.J. PARRINO, J.*, CONCUR. PRESIDING JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON (*SITTING BY ASSIGNMENT: THOMAS J. PARRINO, RETIRED JUDGE OF COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT). N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App. R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .