State v. Ramos

[Cite as State v. Ramos, 2026-Ohio-3386.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 25CA012294 Appellee v. APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE DANIEL RAMOS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO Appellant CASE No. 22CR106074 DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: August 31, 2026 STEVENSON, Judge. {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Daniel Ramos appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Common Pleas Court that found him guilty on three counts of rape. This Court affirms. I. {¶2} Mr. Ramos was indicted by a Lorain County Grand Jury on three counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b), felonies of the first degree. The indictments alleged that the victim, C.R., was less than 13 years of age at the time of the offenses. Mr. Ramos pleaded not guilty and the matter proceeded to a bench trial in June 2025. The State presented the testimony of C.R., C.R.’s mother P.R., and Lorain County Police Detective Christopher Kovach. Mr. Ramos testified in his case in chief and presented the testimony of his nephew, Adrian Ramos, his sister Luz Ramos (Adrian’s mother), and his brother Jose Ramos, Jr. {¶3} The court heard the following testimony and evidence. This case arose from allegations of rape by C.R., who is Mr. Ramos’s nephew. C.R.’s father passed away in 2014 when  2 C.R. was nine years old, leaving P.R. as the sole surviving parent of C.R. and his sister, a child with significant disabilities. C.R.’s father had five surviving siblings: Mr. Ramos, Jose Jr., Luz, Carmen, and Yolanda. Following the death of C.R.’s father, Mr. Ramos began having C.R. over to his residence on occasional weekends. P.R. hoped that Mr. Ramos would be a mentor to C.R. {¶4} C.R. testified that at first he viewed Mr. Ramos as a father figure. When he was 11 or 12, Mr. Ramos began supplying him with alcohol, allowed him to watch sex tapes, gave him gifts, and promised him sex with women if he would engage in sexual acts with Mr. Ramos. C.R. said the two also slept together during his visits and that Mr. Ramos engaged in oral and anal sex with him on three separate occasions. In 2017, C.R. stopped visiting with Mr. Ramos because he was “getting taken advantage of” and “did not enjoy being there any more after what was happening to [him].” C.R. did not discuss these events with anyone until January 2020 when he disclosed the sexual encounters to a Boy Scout leader who in turn informed P.R. {¶5} P.R.’s first course of action was to call her deceased husband’s sister Carmen and then the Sheffield Lake Police. A Sheffield Lake Officer informed P.R. that a report needed to be made with the Lorain Police Department because the alleged crimes occurred in Lorain County. In an effort to keep the matter private, P.R. called a family meeting with Jose Jr., Luz, and Carmen, the three oldest surviving siblings, and C.R. to discuss the allegations. P.R. testified that the family was shocked and upset about C.R.’s allegations. P.R. asked the oldest brother, Jose Jr., to confront Mr. Ramos. Jose Jr. called Mr. Ramos and he denied the allegations. No further action was taken by anyone at that time. {¶6} In 2019, when C.R. was 14, he was diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome, generalized anxiety disorder, ADHD, and PTSD. He began receiving treatment from a neurologist, including various medications, but at the time, C.R. had not disclosed the abuse by Mr. Ramos. In  3 December 2020, nearly a year after P.R. learned about the abuse, she took C.R. to a psychiatrist for a new mental health assessment. C.R.’s behavior and grades had deteriorated and he had become more isolated and secluded. P.R. said C.R. had also expressed thoughts of suicide. After interviewing both C.R. and P.R. and learning about Mr. Ramos’s sexual acts towards C.R., the examining psychiatrist made a referral to Children’s Services and recommended additional mental health treatment. C.R. reported to the psychiatrist that he felt stressed, had anxiety attacks, suffered from nightmares, flashbacks, severe depression, and was fearful of being hugged. C.R. also told the psychiatrist that he had attempted suicide two years prior at a summer camp, but a friend talked him out of it. C.R. was afraid to disclose the abuse until earlier that year. The record of this interview and the mental health assessment was admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 4. {¶7} As a result of the referral from the psychiatrist, Children’s Services contacted P.R. and the Lorain County police. In January 2021, Detective Kovach received the referral from Children’s Services and undertook an investigation. That investigation involved interviewing C.R., P.R., Carmen, and Luz. From that investigation, Detective Kovach generated an incident report for the police. He testified that he had investigated many other cases where, as here, the only eyewitness was the victim and there was no other direct evidence; i.e., fingerprints, DNA, photos, or a SANE kit. {¶8} Adrian Ramos testified that C.R. never confided in him that Mr. Ramos had sexually abused him. In his opinion, C.R. had four years to fabricate a story that would explain and exonerate him from the consequences of his bad behavior. He also believed C.R. was retaliating against Mr. Ramos for no longer permitting C.R. to come over to his house. Adrian also said he never saw C.R. avoid Mr. Ramos at family gatherings. He admitted, however, that he  4 never asked Mr. Ramos about the allegations though he had learned about them from his mother, Luz Ramos. {¶9} Luz Ramos resided in the upstairs of Mr. Ramos’s residence. She testified that she never observed Mr. Ramos acting inappropriately with C.R. at family events and said she didn’t believe C.R. at the family meeting because he was “talking and laughing[.]” She further pointed out that Mr. Ramos denied the allegations when confronted by Jose Jr. Jose Jr. testified that he did not believe C.R., noting that Mr. Ramos had denied the allegations when he was confronted and that C.R. avoided eye contact and seemed happy during the family meeting as if it was a “big joke[.]” {¶10} During his testimony, Mr. Ramos denied allowing C.R. to drink alcohol or that C.R. slept in his bedroom with him. He denied having any sex tapes or pornography in his house or ever watching it. He also denied that he offered C.R. women to engage in sex with him. He denied C.R.’s allegations of sexual abuse. He said that he stopped inviting C.R. to come over because “he was a handful[,]” “was extremely hyper, [and] he didn’t really respect.” {¶11} The court found Mr. Ramos guilty on all three counts and sentenced him to a minimum of 10 years to life in prison on each count with the terms to run concurrently with each other. Mr. Ramos timely appealed and raises one assignment of error for our review. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ONE: [MR. RAMOS] WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BASED ON TRIAL COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO CROSS[-]EXAMINE THE ALLEGED VICTIM AND OFFER KNOWN, EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. {¶12} To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Mr. Ramos must establish: (1) his counsel's performance was deficient to the extent that “counsel was not  5 functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment” and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). A deficient performance is one that “fall[s] below an objective standard of reasonable representation[.]” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus. “[I]n Ohio, a properly licensed attorney is presumed competent.” State v. Gondor, 2006-Ohio-6679, ¶ 62. In addition, to establish prejudice, Mr. Ramos must show that there existed “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland at 694; State v . Sowell, 2016-Ohio-8025, ¶ 138. Both prongs under Strickland must be established to support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Strickland at 687. “An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment.” Id. at 691. As the Supreme Court of Ohio has previously stated, “‘[d]ebatable trial tactics do not establish ineffective assistance of counsel.’” State v. Cepec, 2016-Ohio-8076, ¶ 111, quoting State v. Leonard, 2004- Ohio-6235, ¶ 146. {¶13} Mr. Ramos argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for the following reasons: (1) he declined to cross-examine C.R., the victim and sole witness who claimed to be present during the alleged crimes; (2) he failed to elicit testimony from Mr. Ramos’s daughter, Linda Ramos, from whom he allegedly had an affidavit stating she was living in Mr. Ramos’s home during the times when the alleged conduct occurred and did not observe or hear anything inappropriate; and (3) he made no attempts to obtain C.R.’s psychiatric records “despite the substantial possibility of valuable, exculpatory information.” Based on these alleged deficiencies, Mr. Ramos argues that his trial counsel’s performance fell short of the standard of reasonableness and prejudiced him.  6 {¶14} As for Linda Ramos, Mr. Ramos argues that not only was defense counsel ineffective for not calling her as a witness, but in addition, he allowed her to remain in the gallery, further damaging her potential use as a witness if he changed his mind. He maintains that there is no possibility those decisions could be considered sound trial strategy. Mr. Ramos states that body camera footage of Mr. Ramos’s arrest shows Linda saying that she did not see or hear anything inappropriate. He also claims that she prepared an affidavit attesting to the same, and that if the body camera and affidavit had been admitted, they would have changed the court’s ruling. The problem with Mr. Ramos’s argument is that the police body camera footage was not admitted into evidence. The contents of Linda’s affidavit was also not admitted into evidence nor proffered on the record to show the court what her testimony would have been. Therefore, this Court cannot review the body cam footage or the affidavit to determine whether the failure to utilize Linda’s testimony was prejudicial. Counsel’s argument is better suited for a petition for post-conviction relief, which would allow Mr. Ramos to challenge his conviction or sentence based on issues outside the record. {¶15} Regarding C.R.’s psychiatric records, Mr. Ramos argues that evaluation of those records “would have allowed prior counsel to properly cross examine [C.R.] and his family members.” Mr. Ramos has not supplied this Court with the “valuable, exculpatory information” that those records allegedly contain, nor does he explain how that information would have affected trial counsel’s cross-examination, and how any testimony elicited from that cross-examination would have changed the trial court’s judgment. In fact, as noted above, his argument is speculative; i.e. he states there is a “substantial possibility of valuable, exculpatory information.” (Emphasis added.) As previously established, the standard is “reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (Emphasis  7 added.) Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694; Sowell, 2016-Ohio-8025, at ¶ 138. Mr. Ramos does not argue that he has reviewed those records but merely believes that they probably contain exculpatory information. Thus, assuming without deciding that counsel’s performance was deficient in the manner alleged, Mr. Ramos is unable to establish prejudice to his case as a result. As both prongs of the Strickland test must be met to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Mr. Ramos cannot support his claim here. {¶16} Regarding trial counsel’s failure to cross-examine C.R., Mr. Ramos’s single argument is that “had [C.R.] been properly cross-examined, his credibility would have been impeached and his story would have fallen apart.” Mr. Ramos has not established his counsel was deficient because he does not elaborate or identify what particular questions should have been asked on cross-examination that would have impeached C.R.’s credibility and caused his story to fall apart. See State v. Beasley, 2018-Ohio-493, ¶ 155 (to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance for failure to cross-examine witnesses, a defendant must identify the questions his counsel should have asked and provide some sense of the information that might have been elicited). Furthermore, the trial court heard testimony from Mr. Ramos and his three witnesses that they all thought C.R.’s story was a fabrication, and Mr. Ramos’s counsel argued the same in his opening and closing statement to the court. Thus, Mr. Ramos’s counsel called four witnesses that claimed C.R.’s story was not credible. Also, Mr. Ramos’s counsel cross-examined P.R. regarding C.R.’s mental and behavioral issues that Mr. Ramos claims would have negatively impacted C.R.’s credibility. In addition, State’s Exhibit 4, C.R.’s 2020 mental health assessment, was admitted into evidence and thus was available for review by the court in determining its judgment. That assessment contained C.R.’s mental health history dating back to his original diagnosis and included details about his behavioral issues.  8 {¶17} This Court addressed the same issue in State v. Diaz, 2005-Ohio-3108 (9th Dist.). In that case, Mr. Diaz contended that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to cross-examine the child victims. Id. at ¶ 20. In rejecting Mr. Diaz’s ineffective assistance argument, we reiterated the well-settled principle that “trial counsel's decision to cross-examine a witness and the extent of such cross-examination are tactical matters” that are “within trial counsel’s discretion, and cannot form the basis for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. at ¶ 26, citing State v. Flors, 38 Ohio App.3d 133, 139 (8th Dist. 1987). Mr. Ramos’s trial counsel decided not to cross-examine C.R., a tactical decision within counsel’s discretion. Id. It is clear from the record that trial counsel challenged C.R.’s credibility from other sources and it is reasonable trial strategy to avoid cross-examining a child victim. See e.g. State v. Link, 2026-Ohio-1640, ¶ 22 (9th Dist.) (trial counsel’s strategic decision not to cross-examine the minor victim is not ineffective assistance because it avoided the jury hearing directly from the victim about certain portions of her claim); State v. Hughes, 2015-Ohio-151, ¶ 60 (10th Dist.) (trial counsel’s failure to cross-examine the child victim of rape and sexual imposition not ineffective assistance and was reasonable trial tactic given the sensitive nature of the case); State v. Ross, 2018-Ohio-452, ¶ 64 (11th Dist.) (overruled appellant’s argument that counsel was ineffective in not cross-examining the child victim regarding statements she made to appellant). Based on the record before us, we cannot say counsel’s performance was deficient for failing to cross-examine C.R. because counsel raised the issues of C.R.’s credibility through the testimony of C.R.’s family members. {¶18} Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Mr. Ramos’s assignment of error is overruled.  9 III. {¶19} Mr. Ramos’s single assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27. Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant. SCOT STEVENSON FOR THE COURT HENSAL, P. J. SUTTON, J. CONCUR.  10 APPEARANCES: JUSTIN M. WEATHERLY, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. ANTHONY CILLO, Prosecuting Attorney, and T. ALLAN REGAS, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.