State v. Beverly, 032019 OHCA9, 28627

Docket Nº:28627
Opinion Judge:JULIE A. SCHAFER JUDGE.
Party Name:STATE OF OHIO Appellee v. ANDRIENNE BEVERLY Appellant
Attorney:MARK H. LUDWIG, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:HENSAL, J. CONCURS. CARR, J. CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
Case Date:March 20, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

2019-Ohio-957

STATE OF OHIO Appellee

v.

ANDRIENNE BEVERLY Appellant

No. 28627

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit

March 20, 2019

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2015-09-2723

MARK H. LUDWIG, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and JACQUENETTE S. CORGAN, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

JULIE A. SCHAFER JUDGE.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Adrienne Beverly, appeals from her conviction in Summit County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms.

I.

{¶2} Ms. Beverly was charged with one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, in violation of R.C. 2913.03(B), a felony of the fifth degree. The charge stems from Ms. Beverly's failure to return a vehicle she rented from Avis. She initially entered a plea of not guilty.

{¶3} On November 30, 2015, she withdrew her former plea and entered a plea of guilty to the charge in the indictment. The trial court accepted Ms. Beverly's plea, found her guilty of the offense, and ordered that the case be held in abeyance pending Ms. Beverly's successful completion of the prosecutor's diversion program. As a condition of her participation in the diversion program, Ms. Beverly was ordered, inter alia, to "[m]ake full and complete restitution in the amount of $4, 409.62 to Avis Rent-A-Car[.]"

{¶4} Ms. Beverly was terminated from the prosecutor's diversion program on March 28, 2017. Accordingly, the trial court reinstated the case and ordered that Ms. Beverly be sentenced to six months of incarceration, which the court suspended upon the condition that she complete eighteen months of community control. The trial court also imposed a condition requiring Ms. Beverly to "make full and complete restitution in the amount of $4, 409.62 to Avis Car Rental, the victim in this matter[.]"

{¶5} Ms. Beverly appealed from her conviction and presents two assignments of error for our review.

II.

Assignment of Error I

The trial court erred in accepting the guilty plea and referring Ms. Beverly to the prosecutor's diversion program then including a fixed award of $4609.62[sic] in restitution.

{¶6} In her first assignment of error, Ms. Beverly argues that the trial court erred by accepting her guilty plea and referring her to the prosecutor's diversion program with a fixed award of restitution. Initially we note that Ms. Beverly's basis for assigning error is somewhat uncertain. In her brief, she hints at several issues, but fails to articulate any clear contention or supporting argument. See App.R. 16(A)(7). Further confusing the issue, Ms. Beverly argues that her plea should be set aside, but then requests that her "entire plea" not be set aside, and, instead, the restitution award and community control be vacated and the matter remanded for a hearing. However, this Court will not "guess at undeveloped claims on appeal" or construct arguments to support an assignment of error. McPherson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 9th Dist. Summit No. 21499, 2003-Ohio-7190, ¶ 31, citing Elyria Joint Venture v. Boardwalk Fries, Inc., 9th Dist. Lorain No. 99CA007336, 2001 WL 10852, *3, and quoting Cardone v. Cardone, 9th Dist. Summit No. 18349, 1998 WL 224934, *8. Accordingly, we confine our review to the only cognizable issue sufficiently related to the assignment of error: whether the trial court erred in accepting Ms. Beverly's guilty plea if the issue of restitution was not properly addressed in accordance with Crim.R. 11.

{¶7} "When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily." State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 (1996). The trial court must engage a defendant in a colloquy as described in Crim.R. 11(C), and "the trial judge must convey accurate information to the defendant so that the defendant can understand the consequences of his or her decision and enter a valid plea." State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 26. "'[Reviewing courts must engage in a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP