[Cite as State v. Collett , 2011-Ohio-4625.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
ADAMS COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 10CA905
:
vs. : Released: September 2, 2011
:
JEREMY COLLETT, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT
: ENTRY
Defendant-Appellant. :
APPEARANCES:
Lisa Rothwell, West Union, Ohio, for Appellant.
C. David Kelley, Adams County Prosecutor, and Kris D. Blanton, Adams County
Assistant Prosecutor, West Union, Ohio, for Appellee.
McFarland, J.:
{¶1} Appellant Jeremy Collett appeals his conviction in the Adams County
Court of Common Pleas after pleading guilty to one count of assault, a felony of
the fourth degree in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A). Appellant raises one assignment
of error, arguing he did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently enter his
guilty plea. Having reviewed the record, we find no error in the trial court’s
acceptance of Appellant’s plea and overrule Appellant’s sole assignment of error.
As such, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Adams App. No. 10CA905 2
FACTS
{¶2} On May 5, 2010, Sergeant Steve Spratt (“Sgt. Spratt”) of the Seaman,
Ohio Police Department was dispatched to an altercation involving multiple
persons. Upon arriving at the scene, Sgt. Spratt observed Appellant striking a
juvenile. Sgt. Spratt placed Appellant in handcuffs and began leading him to the
police cruiser, but released his grip on Appellant when a female began striking
another individual. As Sgt. Spratt was restraining the female and attempting to
place her in handcuffs, Appellant approached Sgt. Spratt from behind and began
head butting him. When Sgt. Spratt fell to the ground, Appellant started kicking
him and another person had to stop Appellant’s attack.
{¶3} As a result, the Adams County grand jury indicted Appellant on one
count of assault, a felony of the fourth degree. R.C. 2903.13(A) and (C)(3). At the
arraignment, Appellant notified the trial court that he only had an eighth grade
education and had some difficulty reading and writing.
{¶4} During a subsequent motion to modify bond, Appellant stated his belief
that he was not on any form of community control or parole. The trial court
consulted with an employee from its community control department and informed
Appellant he was actually still on community control from a previous case.
{¶5} Appellant agreed to plead guilty to the sole count in the indictment in
exchange for the state not recommending a prison sentence. Appellant accordingly
Adams App. No. 10CA905 3
pled guilty and the trial court ordered Appellant to serve a prison sentence of 16
months. Appellant now claims his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent because the court failed to adequately explain the potential
consequences of entering a guilty plea.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
I. “THE TRIAL COURT DENIED THE APPELLANT DUE PROCESS IN
VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATE’S CONSTITUTION AND THE
OHIO CONSTITUTION WHEN THE TRIAL COURT ACCEPTED THE
DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA AS IT WAS NOT KNOWINGLY,
VOLUNTARILY, AND INTELLIGENTLY MADE.”
ANALYSIS
{¶6} Appellant contends that the trial court erred in accepting his plea
because he was confused as to whether he was still on community control as a
sanction from a previous case. Appellant also submits because the court was
aware of his limited education and partial literacy, it should have ensured that he
fully understood the implications of his plea agreement in light of his outstanding
community control. However, everything in the record indicates that the trial court
adequately explained all required matters to Appellant and we overrule Appellant’s
sole assignment of error.
{¶7} “‘When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be
made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of those points
renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States
Adams App. No. 10CA905 4
Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.’” State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176,
2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, quoting State v. Engle (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d
525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450. “In considering whether a guilty plea was entered
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, an appellate court examines the totality of
the circumstances through a de novo review of the record to ensure that the trial
court complied with constitutional and procedural safeguards.” (Internal
quotations omitted.) State v. McDaniel, 4th Dist. No. 09CA677, 2010-Ohio-5215,
at ¶8, quoting State v. Eckler, 4th Dist. No. 09CA878, 2009-Ohio-7064, at ¶48.
{¶8} “‘The best way to ensure that pleas are entered knowingly and
voluntarily is to simply follow the requirements of Crim.R. 11 when deciding
whether to accept a plea * * *.’” State v. Pigge, 4th Dist. No. 09CA3136, 2010-
Ohio-6541, at ¶16, quoting State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748,
893 N.E.2d 462, at ¶29. See, also, State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 479,
423 N.E.2d 115 (stating “the best method of informing a defendant of his
constitutional rights is to use the language contained in Crim.R. 11(C), stopping
after each right and asking the defendant whether he understands the right and
knows that he is waiving it by pleading guilty”). The trial court need only
“‘explain[ ] or refer[ ]’ to the Crim.R. 11(C) protections ‘in a manner reasonably
intelligible to that defendant.’” Pigge at ¶16, quoting Ballard at 479.
Adams App. No. 10CA905 5
{¶9} Here, Appellant highlights his limited education and semi-literacy, but
fails to demonstrate how the trial court’s colloquy with him, before the court
accepted his plea, was lacking. The record reveals that the trial court went to great
lengths to insure Appellant knew and understood the potential consequences of
entering a guilty plea, and Appellant assured the court he did.
{¶10} It is true that Appellant was confused about whether he was still on
community control from a previous case. (Tr. at 6-7.) To alleviate this confusion,
the court asked Ms. Regina Hall from the community control department to
confirm that Appellant was still on community control. (Tr. at 7-8.) Ms. Hall
testified that Appellant was still on community control from his previous case, and
Appellant acknowledged he understood this. (Tr. at 8.)
{¶11} Then, because the trial court was unsure of the length of Appellant’s
suspended sentence from the previous case, it ordered the retrieval of the court’s
file from that case so Appellant could make “an informed decision” of whether to
change his plea. (Tr. at 8.) While the file was being located, the trial court
informed Appellant that a guilty plea in the current case may be used as a basis for
revoking his community control in the previous case. (Tr. at 9.) Once presented
with the file, the court informed Appellant that the suspended sentence from the
previous case was 12 months, and again, he could face a motion to revoke
community control in that previous case as a result of pleading guilty in this case.
Adams App. No. 10CA905 6
(Tr. at 13.) Appellant stated he understood this. (Tr. at 13.) The court explained
that even if it sentenced Appellant to community control in the instant case, it
could still revoke his community control in the previous case, which Appellant
understood. (Tr. at 13-14.) Thus, the trial court fully explained to Appellant the
potential impact of his plea upon his existing community control.
{¶12} The trial court explained to Appellant the possibility of placing him
on community control in the instant case and what that would entail, great detail,
which Appellant acknowledged he understood. The trial court strictly adhered to
Crim.R. 11(C) when it explained Appellant’s rights to him, and it also went
beyond the language of the rule when it explained Appellant’s rights in a manner
he understood. When the trial court asked Appellant whether he needed to clarify
anything with his attorney, Appellant not only answered in the negative, but he
thanked the court for its thorough explanation:
“COURT: * * * Do you have any matters that you need to talk to
your attorney, that you need to clear up?
“[APPELLANT]: No, I guess not sir. I mean everything, you know, sounds
great, and I mean, you’ve explained everything to me, so.
“COURT: Okay. Mr. Collett, is there anything that you and I have
discussed in open [c]ourt today that you did not fully and completely understand?
Adams App. No. 10CA905 7
“[APPELLANT]: You’ve pretty well, you know, explained everything to a
tee to me, that way I can understand, so I appreciate that sir.”
(Tr. at 26.)
{¶13} Finally, when the trial court asked Appellant to execute the written
change of plea form, it noted Appellant’s difficulty with reading and asked that he
take as much time as needed to review the form with his attorney. Neither
Appellant nor his counsel indicated any problems understanding the form and
Appellant acknowledged that he understood its contents and signed it.
{¶14} In our view, the record indicates Appellant’s plea was knowing,
voluntary, and intelligent. Although Appellant had a limited formal education, he
indicated that he understood everything the court discussed. The trial court had
explained matters to Appellant so well, in fact, that Appellant thanked the court for
doing so. Regarding Appellant’s difficulty with reading, the only document
Appellant had to read was the change of plea form, with which his counsel
assisted. Appellant acknowledged that he understood the form and signed it.
{¶15} Having considered the totality of the circumstances, we find that
Appellant’s plea of guilty was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, and we overrule
Appellant’s sole assignment of error.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Adams App. No. 10CA905 8
JUDGMENT ENTRY
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and that the Appellee
recover of Appellant 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
Adams County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON
BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR
THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days
upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow
Appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during
the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it
will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure
of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the
forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of
the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses
the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of
such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule
27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Exceptions.
Abele, J. and Kline, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court,
BY: _________________________
Matthew W. McFarland, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final
judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the
date of filing with the clerk.
State v. Collett
Combined Opinion