indictment for robbery violation in Ohio

2009State v. Younger (1975), 46 Ohio App.2d 269 , 349 N.E.2d 322 . {¶ 17} Accordingly, we find that counsel was not deficient in failing to raise the speedy trial issue or in counseling Pond regarding his guilty plea; therefore, Pond was not denied effective assistance of counsel. {¶ 18} The second assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 19} In the third assignment of error, Pond argues that his indictment was defective because his indictment for aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01 (A)(1), did not include the necessary element of mens rea. {¶ 20} In State v. Colon , 118 Ohio St. 3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1

2009State v. Younger (1975), 46 Ohio App.2d 269 , 349 N.E.2d 322 . {¶ 17} Accordingly, we find that counsel was not deficient in failing to raise the speedy trial issue or in counseling Pond regarding his guilty plea; therefore, Pond was not denied effective assistance of counsel. {¶ 18} The second assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 19} In the third assignment of error, Pond argues that his indictment was defective because his indictment for aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01 (A)(1), did not include the necessary element of mens rea. {¶ 20} In State v. Colon , 118 Ohio St. 3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1

2009He argues that his conviction should be reversed under the authority of the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 , 885 N.E.2d 917 (“Colon I ”), and State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204 , 2008-Ohio-3749 , 893 N.E.2d 169 (“Colon II ”). {¶ 6} In Colon I, the court found that an indictment for robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) was defective when it omitted the mens rea element of recklessness, which was an essential element of the crime.

2009He argues that his conviction should be reversed under the authority of the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 , 885 N.E.2d 917 (“Colon I ”), and State v. Colon, 119 Ohio St.3d 204 , 2008-Ohio-3749 , 893 N.E.2d 169 (“Colon II ”). {¶ 6} In Colon I, the court found that an indictment for robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2) was defective when it omitted the mens rea element of recklessness, which was an essential element of the crime.

2009The court determined that the indictment failed to *Page 8 charge an offense, which was a constitutional, structural error not waived by failing to raise that issue in the trial court. {¶ 26} However, as this Court noted in State v. Vance , Ashland App. No. 2007-COA-035, 2008-Ohio-4763 , the Supreme Court reconsidered this position in State v. Colon ("Colon II") , 119 Ohio St.3d 204 , 893 N.E.2d 169 , 2008-Ohio-3749 .

2008The court determined that the indictment failed to charge an offense, a constitutional, structural error not waived by failing to raise that issue in the trial court. {¶ 23} Conversely, as this Court noted in State v. Vance , Ashland App. No. 2007-COA-035, 2008-Ohio-4763 , the Supreme Court reconsidered this position in State v. Colon ("Colon II") , 119 Ohio St.3d 204 , 893 N.E.2d 169 , 2008-Ohio-3749 .

2009As a result, [pursuant to R.C. 2901.21(B),] the state was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant recklessly inflicted, attempted to inflict, or threatened to inflict physical harm.” Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 , 885 N.E.2d 917, ¶ 14 . {¶ 21} Relative to this assignment of error, appellant in this case was indicted in Count III of the indictment on illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(3), which provides: {¶ 22} “(A) No person shall do any of the following: {¶ 23}

2009As a result, [pursuant to R.C. 2901.21(B),] the state was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant recklessly inflicted, attempted to inflict, or threatened to inflict physical harm.” Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 , 885 N.E.2d 917, ¶ 14 . {¶ 21} Relative to this assignment of error, appellant in this case was indicted in Count III of the indictment on illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(3), which provides: {¶ 22} “(A) No person shall do any of the following: {¶ 23}

2009As a result, [pursuant to R.C. 2901.21(B),] the state was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant recklessly inflicted, attempted to inflict, or threatened to inflict physical harm.” Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 , 885 N.E.2d 917, ¶ 14 . {¶ 21} Relative to this assignment of error, appellant in this case was indicted in Count III of the indictment on illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(3), which provides: {¶ 22} “(A) No person shall do any of the following: {¶ 23}

2009As a result, [pursuant to R.C. 2901.21(B),] the state was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant recklessly inflicted, attempted to inflict, or threatened to inflict physical harm.” Colon, 118 Ohio St.3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1624 , 885 N.E.2d 917, ¶ 14 . {¶ 21} Relative to this assignment of error, appellant in this case was indicted in Count III of the indictment on illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material or performance, a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2907.323(A)(3), which provides: {¶ 22} “(A) No person shall do any of the following: {¶ 23}

2009State v. Younger (1975), 46 Ohio App.2d 269 , 349 N.E.2d 322 . {¶ 17} Accordingly, we find that counsel was not deficient in failing to raise the speedy trial issue or in counseling Pond regarding his guilty plea; therefore, Pond was not denied effective assistance of counsel. {¶ 18} The second assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 19} In the third assignment of error, Pond argues that his indictment was defective because his indictment for aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01 (A)(1), did not include the necessary element of mens rea. {¶ 20} In State v. Colon , 118 Ohio St. 3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1

2009State v. Younger (1975), 46 Ohio App.2d 269 , 349 N.E.2d 322 . {¶ 17} Accordingly, we find that counsel was not deficient in failing to raise the speedy trial issue or in counseling Pond regarding his guilty plea; therefore, Pond was not denied effective assistance of counsel. {¶ 18} The second assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 19} In the third assignment of error, Pond argues that his indictment was defective because his indictment for aggravated robbery under R.C. 2911.01 (A)(1), did not include the necessary element of mens rea. {¶ 20} In State v. Colon , 118 Ohio St. 3d 26 , 2008-Ohio-1

2009This court recently decided State v. Pond , Cuyahoga App. No. 91061, 2009-Ohio-849 , which is dispositive of defendant's fifth assignment of error: {¶ 40} "This court has recently declined to extend Colon to cases in which the defendant pled guilty to the indictment.