State v. Howard
Decision Date | 28 December 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 16CA3762,16CA3762 |
Parties | STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Michael J. HOWARD, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Matthew F. Loesch, Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellant.
Mark E. Kuhn, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a Scioto County Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence. The trial court found Michael J. Howard, defendant below and appellant herein, guilty of second-degree-felony possession of heroin and fourth-degree-felony possession of cocaine, both in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). The court sentenced appellant to serve a total of nine-and-one-half years in prison. Appellant assigns the following errors for review:
{¶ 2} On July 16, 2015, a Scioto County grand jury returned an indictment that charged appellant with four drug-related offenses. Appellant entered not guilty pleas and later filed a motion to suppress evidence. The trial court overruled appellant's motion to suppress evidence.
{¶ 3} On January 6, 2016, appellant agreed to plead guilty to possession of heroin (a second-degree felony) and possession of cocaine (a fourth-degree felony), both in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A). At the change of plea hearing, the trial court initially noted:
The record should further reflect that it's a negotiated plea, pursuant to Section 2953.08(D) and Criminal Rule 11(F), that as long as [appellant] abides by his conditions of bond when he returns here for sentencing February 17 * * * he'll receive a four year mandatory prison term [for the possession of heroin offense], and on the [possession of cocaine offense], an 18 month prison—non-mandatory prison term, for a total of five—five and a half years. If he fails to abide by his conditions of bond he'll receive a nine and one half year prison term.
Both defense counsel and appellant concurred that the court accurately recited their understanding of the agreement.
{¶ 4} The trial court asked appellant if he understood that "by proceeding in this fashion, * * * you're waiving your right to appeal[.]" Appellant indicated that he understood. The court observed that appellant had signed a document entitled, "Waiver," and questioned appellant whether he signed the Waiver. Appellant responded affirmatively. The document indicates that the court advised appellant of the charges against him, the penalty provided by law, his rights under the constitution, including the right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses, the right to compulsory process, and the right to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The document additionally recites that "[n]o promises, threats or inducements have been made to me by anyone to secure my plea of guilty."
{¶ 5} In addition to asking appellant about the written form, the trial court verbally questioned appellant whether he understood that pleading guilty waives his right to a jury trial, his right to confront witnesses, his right to compulsory process, and his right to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant responded that he understood and further stated that he understood that he could not be made to testify against himself.
{¶ 6} The trial court next reviewed the maximum penalties and informed appellant that a fourth-degree felony carries a maximum prison term of eighteen months and a $5,000 maximum fine, and that a second-degree felony carries a maximum prison term of eight years and a $15,000 maximum fine. Appellant indicated that he understood the maximum penalties. Appellant also signed two documents entitled, "Maximum Penalty." One document outlined the maximum penalty for appellant's possession of cocaine offense, and the other set forth the maximum penalty for appellant's possession of heroin offense.
{¶ 7} After the trial court explained post-release control, the court asked appellant if he was "satisfied with the efforts of [his] lawyer." Appellant answered, "Yes." The court asked appellant: "Other than what's been stated on the record here today, has anybody made any additional promises, threats, or inducements in order to get you to change your plea to guilty?" Appellant responded, "No."
{¶ 8} The trial court next asked appellant, "how do you plea?" Appellant answered, "No contest." Defense counsel interjected, "Guilty." The trial court stated, "No, that won't get it." Appellant then stated, The court again asked him his plea, and appellant stated, "Guilty."
{¶ 9} The trial court subsequently accepted appellant's guilty plea and scheduled the sentencing hearing for February 17, 2016.
{¶ 10} However, prior to the sentencing hearing, appellant took a drug test, tested positive for THC and fled the jurisdiction. Appellant later was apprehended in the State of Nevada.
{¶ 11} On June 23, 2016, appellant, through new counsel, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He claimed that when he entered his guilty plea, "he was in distress * * *, acted out of fear and panic, was confused in his thought process, and prematurely entered a guilty plea." Appellant contended that "his judgement was impaired when he entered his guilty plea [due] to emotions of fear, panic, and confusion." He asserted that "he did not have any other choice but to accept a plea deal in this case, despite significant misgivings about accepting the same." He thus argued that his plea was not knowing and voluntary.
{¶ 12} On June 23, 2016, the trial court held the sentencing hearing. The court noted that appellant did not appear as scheduled for the February 17, 2016 sentencing hearing. The court pointed out that appellant appeared late, tested positive for THC, and fled the jurisdiction.
{¶ 14} Appellant took the stand and testified that he tried to plead "no contest," but the court would not allow it. Appellant spoke with his counsel, and counsel informed him that he has Appellant stated that he believed that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea because his previous defense counsel pressured him to accept the state's plea offer. Appellant claimed that his previous counsel stated:
* * * get more for less. Take this deal. You know, if you want to see your daughter, you want to get out, take this deal. And I was just like, what, I couldn't believe it like the amount of evidence that was—that was being held against me or whatever and by me never being in prison, never, you know, I just couldn't understand it. He was like, "Well, take it or you're going to get eight years or something."
Appellant stated that he "was scared like shit" and did not believe that he really had a choice.
{¶ 15} The state cross-examined appellant and asked him whether he wished to withdraw his plea because he believes "the sentence [he] agreed to was too harsh." Appellant responded, "Not necessar[il]y too harsh[;] it was just I was coerced into believing that I have no other option."
{¶ 16} After consideration, the trial court overruled appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and found that appellant had entered his guilty plea in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner. The court then proceeded to sentencing and stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Holloway, Appellate Case No. 2017-CA-91
...offenses of possession of or trafficking in different types of drugs constitute separate offenses and do not merge. See State v. Howard, 2017-Ohio-9392, 103 N.E.3d 108, ¶ 65 (4th Dist.); State v. Rice, 5th Dist. Licking No. 16-CA-87, 2017-Ohio-1504, ¶ 12-13; State v. Ratliff, 6th Dist. Luca......
-
State v. Daniels
...No. 2017-CA-17, 2018-Ohio-3199, discretionary appeal allowed, 154 Ohio St.3d 1443, 2018-Ohio-4962, 113 N.E.3d 551; State v. Howard, 2017-Ohio-9392, 103 N.E.3d 108 (4th Dist.); State v. Morgan, 5th Dist. Richland No. 18CA121, 2019-Ohio-2785; State v. Ratliff, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-16-1187, 2......
-
State v. Brown
...... open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with. which he is charged * * * may not thereafter raise. independent claims relating to the deprivation of. constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the. guilty plea.'" (ellipses sic.) State v. Howard, 2017-Ohio-9392, 103 N.E.3d 108, (4th Dist.). ¶ 69, quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Therefore,. "Ohio courts routinely hold that a guilty plea waives. the right to challenge on appeal a trial court's decision. denying a motion to suppress ......
-
State v. Brown
...... open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with. which he is charged * * * may not thereafter raise. independent claims relating to the deprivation of. constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the. guilty plea.'" (ellipses sic.) State v. Howard, 2017-Ohio-9392, 103 N.E.3d 108, (4th Dist.). ¶ 69, quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Therefore,. "Ohio courts routinely hold that a guilty plea waives. the right to challenge on appeal a trial court's decision. denying a motion to suppress ......