State v. Dansby-East

Decision Date21 January 2016
Docket NumberNo. 102656 , No. 102659., No. 102658 , No. 102657 ,102656
Citation57 N.E.3d 450
Parties STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Christopher DANSBY–EAST, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

Aaron T. Baker, Willoughby, OH, for appellant.

Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, Nicole Ellis, Assistant County Prosecutor, Cleveland, OH, for appellee.

Before: KILBANE, P.J., McCORMACK, J., and E.T. GALLAGHER, J.

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, P.J.

{¶ 1} In these consolidated appeals, defendant-appellant Christopher Dansby–East (Dansby–East), appeals from his convictions for drug trafficking. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the convictions, but finding plain error in connection with the sentences imposed, we vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing.

{¶ 2} On February 5, 2014, Dansby–East and codefendant, Michael Marbuery–Davis (“Marbuery–Davis”), were indicted in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR–14–582057–A, pursuant to a three-count indictment for drug-related offenses that were alleged to have occurred in January 2014. The indictment charged Dansby–East with drug trafficking near a school, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) ; drug possession near a school, in violation of R.C. 2925.11 ; and possession of criminal tools, in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A). All counts carried forfeiture specifications.

{¶ 3} On June 25, 2014, Dansby–East and codefendant, Mark Hilston (“Hilston”), were indicted in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR–14–586386–A, pursuant to an eight-count indictment, charging them with drug possession and other offenses that were alleged to have occurred in April 2014. In relevant part, this indictment charged Dansby–East with four counts of drug trafficking, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A), and two counts of drug possession, in violation of R.C. 2925.11.

{¶ 4} On July 28, 2014, Dansby–East, along with Marbuery–Davis and Tashawna Teanna Flakes (“Flakes”), were indicted in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR–14–586870–B, pursuant to a 15–count indictment, charging them with drug possession and other offenses that were alleged to have occurred in April 2014. In relevant part, this indictment charged Dansby–East with six counts of drug trafficking, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A), and three counts of drug possession, in violation of R.C. 2925.11.

{¶ 5} On August 19, 2014, Dansby–East and Marbuery–Davis were indicted in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR–14–587857–A, pursuant to a five-count indictment, charging them with drug possession and other offenses that were alleged to have occurred in March 2014. In relevant part, this indictment charged Dansby–East with one count each of possession of criminal tools, in violation of R.C. 2923.24 ; drug trafficking, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A) ; and drug possession, in violation of R.C. 2925.11.

{¶ 6} On November 24, 2014, Dansby–East entered into plea agreements in each case. Prior to taking the guilty pleas, the trial court held a hearing. During the colloquy, Dansby–East was advised that fifth-degree felony drug offenses are punishable by 6 to 12 months in prison, up to a $2,500 fine, and a mandatory driver's license suspension. In addition, the trial court advised Dansby–East that third-degree felony drug offenses [involve] a mandatory fine of $5,000 to $10,000 as determined at sentencing.” The court further stated:

Because it's a drug-related offense, there is a mandatory driver's license suspension for a period of six months to five years as determined by the Court at the sentencing hearing. For purposes of letting you know what the risks are with a felony of the 3rd degree, lower tier, this is not a mandatory sentence[.]
So I have the discretion of either putting you on probation or putting you in prison. If I put you on probation, I can do so for up to five years, require you to participate in programs that I think are beneficial to you and the community, and I can put you in the county jail for up to 180 days as part of probation. My only other option or choice would be to put you in prison for a period of time of 9 months, 12, 18, 24, 30 or 36 months. And as I mentioned earlier, there is a mandatory fine of 5 to $10,000. If I put you on probation and you thereafter violate probation, then I can put you in prison for the same amount of time that I could have at the beginning.
If I put you in prison directly, or if I put you in prison as a result of a probation violation, and you serve whatever time that I order, and you are released from the prison, the Adult Parole Authority has the option of putting you on postrelease control for a period of time of up to three years.

{¶ 7} Thereafter, in CR–14–582057–A, Dansby–East pled guilty to drug trafficking, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2). In CR–14–586386–A, Dansby–East pled guilty to two counts of drug trafficking, a felony of the fifth degree. In CR–14–586870–B, Dansby–East pled guilty to two, fifth-degree felony charges of drug trafficking. In CR–14–587857–A, Dansby–East pled guilty to one charge of fifth-degree felony drug trafficking. All of the remaining charges and schoolyard specifications were dismissed.

{¶ 8} The trial court referred the matter for a presentence investigation prior to sentencing. The court determined that community control sanctions would adequately protect the public and would not demean the seriousness of the offenses. In CR–14–582057–A, the court sentenced Dansby–East to four years of community control sanctions for third-degree felony drug trafficking, which included 180 days in jail for the offense. A 12–month driver's license suspension was also ordered to begin upon Dansby–East's release from jail.

{¶ 9} In CR–14–586386–A, the court sentenced Dansby–East to four years of community control sanctions, which included 180 days in jail for fifth-degree felony drug trafficking in Count 2, and a concurrent 180–day jail term for fifth-degree felony drug trafficking in Count 5. A 12–month driver's license suspension was also ordered to begin upon Dansby–East's release from jail.

{¶ 10} In CR–14–586870–B, the court sentenced Dansby–East to four years of community control sanctions, which included 180 days in jail for fifth-degree felony drug trafficking in Count 2, and a concurrent 180–day jail term for fifth-degree felony drug trafficking in Count 5. A 12–month driver's license suspension was also ordered to begin upon Dansby–East's release from jail.

{¶ 11} In CR–14–587857–A, the trial court sentenced Dansby–East to four years of community control sanctions for the count of fifth-degree felony drug trafficking. The trial court also ordered that Dansby–East be screened for placement at a Community Based Correctional Facility (“CBCF”) and imposed a 12–month license suspension to begin upon his release from jail.

{¶ 12} At the close of the sentencing hearing, defense counsel indicated that Dansby–East would be filing an affidavit of indigency. The affidavit was not filed, however, and the trial court concluded that Dansby–East is indigent for purposes of filing an appeal. The court noted, however, that the fine was mandatory and imposed a mandatory minimum fine of $5,000 in CR–14–582057–A, plus costs and supervision fees. The court suspended fines and costs until Dansby–East completed his jail term.

{¶ 13} Dansby–East now appeals and assigns the following errors for our review:

Assignment of Error One

The trial court erred in failing to comply with Criminal Rule 11 when it informed Appellant that the maximum local jail time he faced under a community control sanction was 180 days, and then imposed 360 days of local jail time, in addition to six more months in a community based correctional facility for total local confinement of 18 months.

Assignment of Error Two

The trial court erred to the prejudice of Appellant when it imposed the statutory fine after the record was clear that Appellant was indigent and had been found to be indigent by the trial court.

Assignment of Error Three

Appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Crim.R. 11 Issues

{¶ 14} Within the first assignment of error, Dansby–East asserts that the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11 when it failed to inform him of the possibility of consecutive sentences that the court later imposed. Specifically, Dansby–East complains that his plea was not knowingly or voluntarily made because the trial court advised him that he faced up to 180 days of incarceration, then ordered the sentence in CR–14–582057–A to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed in CR–14–586386–A, resulting in 360 days in jail.

{¶ 15} Pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C), the trial court shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and doing all of the following:

(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and, if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.
(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentence.
(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant's favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.

{¶ 16} Crim.R. 11 therefore requires a trial court to advise a defendant of the maximum penalty that may be imposed for an offense. This right is not a constitutional right, however, so this aspect of the guilty...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Bishop, s. 2017-1715
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • December 21, 2018
    ...the trial court to advise a defendant during a plea colloquy of the possibility of consecutive sentencing. E.g. , State v. Dansby-East , 2016-Ohio-202, 57 N.E.3d 450, ¶ 16-17 (8th Dist.) ; State v. Gabel , 6th Dist. Sandusky Nos. S-14-038, S-14-042, S-14-043, and S-14-045, 2015-Ohio-2803, 2......
  • State v. Vinson
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • November 3, 2016
    ...does not require a trial court to advise a defendant of the potential for consecutive sentencing. See, e.g., State v. Dansby–East , 2016-Ohio-202, 57 N.E.3d 450, ¶ 16–17 (trial court was not required to advise defendant of the "cumulative total of all of the prison terms for all of the offe......
  • State v. Anderson
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • September 29, 2016
    ...2015 WL 7300488, ¶ 8–10 (trial court is not authorized to impose consecutive community control jail terms); see also State v. Dansby–East, 2016-Ohio-202, 57 N.E.3d 450, ¶ 21 ; State v. Peterson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102428, 2015-Ohio-4581, 2015 WL 6789900, ¶ 13 (recognizing that the Ohio ......
  • State v. Whitman
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • December 22, 2021
    ...the trial court to advise a defendant during a plea colloquy of the possibility of consecutive sentencing. E.g., State v. Dansby-East , 2016-Ohio-202, 57 N.E.3d 450, ¶ 16-17 (8th Dist.) ; State v. Gabel , 6th Dist. Sandusky Nos. S-14-038, S-14-042, S-14-043, and S-14-045, 2015-Ohio-2803 [20......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT