[Cite as State v. Hill, 2016-Ohio-7524.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WOOD COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. WD-15-036
Appellee Trial Court No. CRB 1500208
v.
Darrell K. Hill DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: October 28, 2016
*****
P. Martin Aubry, Perrysburg Chief Prosecutor, for appellee.
Robert P. Soto, for appellant.
*****
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal of the judgment of the Perrysburg Municipal Court,
convicting appellant, Darrell Hill, following a plea of no contest, of one count of
domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C), a misdemeanor of the first degree.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On February 24, 2015, appellant was charged with one count of domestic
violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(C), a misdemeanor of the first degree, one count of
criminal damaging in violation of R.C. 2909.06, a misdemeanor of the second degree,
and one count of menacing in violation of R.C. 2903.22, a misdemeanor of the fourth
degree.
{¶ 3} On April 6, 2015, appellant was arraigned. At the arraignment, appellant
was presented with a video recording that described the process, the effect of entering a
plea of not guilty, guilty, or no contest, and appellant’s rights in accordance with Crim.R.
10(C). When his case was called, the trial court asked appellant if he had seen the video,
and appellant stated that he did. The court then asked if appellant had any questions
about his rights, to which he replied, “Um, no, not really.” Following that, the trial court
informed appellant of the charges that he was facing as well as the maximum penalties
for each charge. The court then referred the matter to the public defender’s office, and
entered a plea of not guilty on his behalf.
{¶ 4} On April 10, 2015, appellant, represented by counsel, withdrew his plea of
not guilty, and entered a plea of no contest to the charge of domestic violence. In return,
the state moved to dismiss the charges of criminal damaging and menacing. Prior to
accepting his plea, the trial court addressed appellant and had the following discussion
regarding the effect of pleading no contest:
2.
THE COURT: With the no contest plea you’re not admitting guilt
but you are accepting as true any statements made here today?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. And a no contest plea would not be used
against you in a subsequent criminal or civil matter. Do you understand
that?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
THE COURT: However, the conviction on this charge could be
used against you if you are again charged with another domestic violence
offense. The subsequent or later domestic violence offense would be
enhanced to a felony. Do you understand that?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
{¶ 5} Following this, the trial court conducted a colloquy with appellant describing
that by entering his no contest plea he was waiving the right to a trial by a judge or jury,
the right to have the state prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to cross-
examine any witnesses, the right to testify on his own behalf or not to testify, and the
right to subpoena witnesses in his defense. Further, the court informed appellant that by
pleading no contest, “you are putting yourself in the position where I can, at my
discretion, sentence you up to the maximum amount of penalties, which is $1,000 fine
and up to six months in jail on this charge.” Appellant affirmed that he understood the
trial court’s notices. Thereafter, the trial court found that appellant knowingly,
3.
voluntarily, and intelligently entered his plea of no contest, and, after hearing the
statement of facts from appellant’s counsel, found appellant guilty of the charge of
domestic violence. The court then continued the matter for preparation of a presentence
investigation report.
{¶ 6} At the sentencing hearing on May 4, 2015, the court heard statements in
mitigation from appellant and his counsel, and imposed a sentence of 180 days in jail,
with credit for the time appellant has served, and a fine of $500.
Assignments of Error
{¶ 7} Appellant has timely appealed his conviction, and now asserts two
assignments of error for our review:
1. The trial court abused its discretion and committed reversible
error in accepting the defendant’s plea despite evidence that it was not
accepted voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
2. Appellant’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of
counsel.
Analysis
{¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that his plea was not
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered.
{¶ 9} Appellant first contends that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R.
11(D), which provides,
4.
In misdemeanor cases involving serious offenses the court may
refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no contest, and shall not accept such plea
without first addressing the defendant personally and informing the
defendant of the effect of the pleas of guilty, no contest, and not guilty and
determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily.
Appellant next asserts that it is unclear if he understood the plea agreement and whether
he was fully advised of the rights he was waiving by entering into the agreement.
Appellant also challenges the trial court’s failure to inform him of all of the maximum
penalties that could be imposed. Finally, appellant argues that the trial court failed to
personally inquire whether he accepted the plea voluntarily.
{¶ 10} We begin by noting that the misdemeanor that appellant was charged with
was a petty offense, not a serious offense. See Crim.R. 2(C) (“‘Serious offense’ means
any felony, and any misdemeanor for which the penalty prescribed by law includes
confinement for more than six months.”) and Crim.R. 2(D) (“‘Petty offense’ means a
misdemeanor other than a serious offense.”). Thus, Crim.R. 11(D) is not applicable.
Rather, the trial court was required to comply with Crim.R. 11(E), which states, “In
misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses the court may refuse to accept a plea of
guilty or no contest, and shall not accept such pleas without first informing the defendant
of the effect of the plea of guilty, no contest, and not guilty.” “[I]n accepting a plea to a
misdemeanor involving a petty offense, a trial court is required to inform the defendant
only of the effect of the specific plea being entered.” State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211,
5.
2007-Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677, ¶ 20. “[F]or petty offenses, the court is not required to
engage in a more detailed colloquy informing appellant of the nature of the charge, the
maximum penalty involved, or her constitutional rights.” State v. Waller, 6th Dist.
Ottawa No. OT-12-031, 2013-Ohio-5909, ¶ 8, citing State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12,
2003-Ohio-2419, 788 N.E.2d 635, ¶ 27-28.
{¶ 11} Here, the record demonstrates that at both the arraignment and the change
of plea hearing the trial court informed appellant of the effect of entering a plea of no
contest, and appellant indicated that he understood. Therefore, the trial court complied
with Crim.R. 11(E), and we hold that it did not err in accepting appellant’s plea.
Furthermore, in this case, the trial court went above what was required and informed
appellant of the rights he was waiving and the maximum penalties that could be imposed.
Thus, we find no merit to appellant’s arguments that his plea was not voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently entered into.
{¶ 12} Accordingly, appellant’s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 13} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that he was deprived the
effective assistance of counsel. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, appellant
must satisfy the two-prong test developed in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,
687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). That is, appellant must demonstrate that
counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and a
reasonable probability exists that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceedings
would have been different. Id. at 687-688, 694. In evaluating an ineffective assistance
6.
claim, courts “must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the
wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136,
142, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989), quoting Strickland at 689.
{¶ 14} Here, appellant argues that counsel failed to explain the potential maximum
sentence and the rights that were being waived, as well as the fact that appellant’s prior
convictions would be considered during sentencing. In addition, appellant argues that it
is unclear whether trial counsel informed him that “the recommendation to suspend [jail]
time was only a recommendation and not a guaranteed sentence.”
{¶ 15} Upon our review, we find nothing in the record that overcomes the
presumption that counsel’s conduct was reasonable. Counsel acknowledged
conversations with appellant that led her to conclude that he understood “everything that
he is entering into today.” Moreover, we note that appellant was informed that he was
pleading no contest to a first-degree misdemeanor charge of domestic violence, and that it
was raised to a first-degree misdemeanor because of his prior convictions. Appellant was
also notified that he could be sentenced up to a maximum of 180 days in jail, and a
$1,000 fine. Finally, as to appellant’s argument relative to a recommended sentence, the
record indicates that no recommendation was given by the prosecutor as part of the plea
agreement.1 Therefore, we hold that appellant has failed to demonstrate both that
1
As part of the plea agreement, the state requested a presentence investigation report,
including a mental health assessment, and that “any time to be suspended include no
contact with [the victims.]”
7.
counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he was
prejudiced by her conduct.
{¶ 16} Accordingly, appellant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
Conclusion
{¶ 17} For the foregoing reasons, we find that substantial justice has been done the
party complaining, and the judgment of the Perrysburg Municipal Court is affirmed.
Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
_______________________________
Stephen A. Yarbrough, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
8.