State v. Hamilton, 2005 Ohio 5450 (OH 10/12/2005), No. 05CA4.
| Decision Date | 12 October 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 05CA4. |
| Citation | 2005 Ohio 5450 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMES E. HAMILTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
David H. Bodiker and Katherine A. Szudy, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant.
Larry E. Beal, Prosecuting Attorney, and David A. Sams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Logan, Ohio, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶1} James E. Hamilton, Jr. appeals his aggravated murder conviction following his guilty plea, arguing that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter his plea because the court incorrectly informed him that he would be subject to post-release control, when he actually is subject to parole. Although the court incorrectly referred to both parole eligibility and post-release control, the court's misstatements do not render Hamilton's guilty plea invalid. Crim.R. 11(C) required the court to advise Hamilton of the maximum penalty, which is imprisonment for life. The trial court advised him of that fact and Hamilton stated that he understood the maximum penalty was life imprisonment with parole eligibility after twenty years. Nothing in the court's post-release control discussion imparted to Hamilton that he would be subject to anything less than a life sentence. Therefore, Hamilton's argument that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily plead guilty because he was unaware of the actual maximum penalty is meritless.
{¶2} Hamilton also contends that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the court's misstatements regarding post-release control. Because Hamilton has not shown how counsel's failure prejudiced his decision to plead guilty, this argument is also meritless. Therefore, we affirm the court's judgment.
{¶3} After being arrested for killing his sixty-nine year old landlord, Hamilton entered a "waiver and entry on information," in which he stated that he understood that aggravated murder is "punishable by imprisonment for life with parole eligibility after 20 full years of imprisonment without reduction." Unfortunately, the entry also recited:
[A] period of control or supervision by the Adult Parole Authority after release from prison is mandatory in this case. The control period may be a maximum term of FIVE years, no reduction. A violation of any post-release control rule or condition can result in a more restrictive sanction while released, an increased duration of supervision or control, up to the maximum set out above and/or re-imprisonment even though I have served the entire stated prison sentence imposed upon me by this Court for all offenses set out above. Re-imprisonment can be imposed in segments of up to 9 months, but cannot exceed a maximum of ½ of the total term imposed for all of the offenses set out above. If I commit another felony while subject to this period of control or supervision, I may be subject to an additional prison term consisting of the maximum period of unserved time remaining on post-release control as set out above or 12 months whichever is greater. This prison term must be served consecutively to any term imposed for the new felony you are convicted of committing.
{¶4} During the hearing, the court advised Hamilton that the penalty for aggravated murder is life in prison without the possibility of parole until he serves twenty years. Hamilton responded that he understood. Later, the court reiterated that the term is life without the possibility of parole until twenty years have expired. Hamilton again stated that he understood. The court then improperly advised him "that even if you serve your sentence, this being a felony akin to a first degree felony, that you can be supervised or that you will be supervised even if you leave prison after serving your term and that the supervision would be for a mandatory period and in this case up to five years of post release control." Hamilton stated he understood. The court explained, The court advised him that he could be sent back to prison if he violates post-release control and that However, twice the court subsequently noted that the maximum sentence was life with parole eligibility after 20 years. Hamilton did not object or indicate that he was confused at any time during sentencing. However, he has appealed his conviction.
{¶5} Hamilton assigns the following error:
James E. Hamilton was deprived of his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I of the Ohio Constitution when the trial court accepted an unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary guilty plea.
{¶6} Hamilton contends that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily plead guilty because the trial court did not inform him of the "actual maximum penalty" he could face if he were granted parole and subsequently re-incarcerated. He correctly asserts that the trial court improperly advised him that he would be subject to post-release control for five years after his release and that he could be re-imprisoned for a period of up to nine months if he violated the terms of his postrelease control. Hamilton notes that he would be subject to parole, not post-release control, and that if he violated his release conditions, his life prison term could be reinstated. Within his assignment of error, Hamilton also argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the trial court's misstatements.
{¶7} Because Hamilton did not object to the court's reference to post-release control, he was waived this mistake except to the extent it amounts to plain error. Under Crim.R. 52(B), "[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." For a reviewing court to find plain error, the following three conditions must exist: (1) an error in the proceedings; (2) the error must be plain, i.e., the error must be an "obvious" defect in the trial proceedings; and (3) the error must have affected "substantial rights," i.e., the trial court's error must have affected the outcome of the trial. See, e.g., State v. Noling 98 Ohio St.3d 44, 56, 2002-Ohio-7044; State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27, 2002-Ohio-68, 759 N.E.2d 1240; State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245, 257, 2001-Ohio-189, 750 N.E.2d 90; State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191, 200, 2001-Ohio-141, 749 N.E.2d 274. Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court has stated that Crim.R. 52(B) is to be invoked "with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." State v. Landrum (1990), 53 Ohio St. 3d 107, 111, 559 N.E.2d 710; see, also, State v. Long (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 7 O.O.3d 178, 372 N.E.2d 804, paragraph three of the syllabus. A reviewing court should consider noticing plain error only if the error "'"seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings."'" Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d at 27 (quoting United States v. Olano (1993), 507 U.S. 725, 736, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508, quoting United States v. Atkinson (1936), 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 80 L.Ed. 555).
{¶8} Generally, a defendant who pleads guilty or no contest waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings. See Crim.R. 11(B)(1); see, also, United States v. Broce (1989), 488 U.S. 563, 109 S.Ct. 757, 102 L.Ed.2d 92; State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, 810 N.E.2d 927, at ¶78 (). "Therefore, a defendant who voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently enters a guilty plea with the assistance of counsel 'may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea."' Id., quoting Tollett v. Henderson (1973), 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235. However, a guilty or no contest plea does not preclude a defendant from challenging the trial court's determination that he or she knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered the plea. State v. Engle (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450.
{¶9} In considering whether a criminal defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a guilty plea, we must review the record to ensure that the trial court complied with the constitutional and procedural safeguards contained within Crim.R. 11. State v. Kelley (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 127, 128, 566 N.E.2d 658 (); see, also, State v. Carter (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 34, 396 N.E.2d 757. Under Crim.R. 11(C)(2), the trial court shall not accept a guilty plea without first addressing the defendant personally and: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial