State v. Shannon
| Decision Date | 29 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 2017-T-0012 |
| Citation | 2017 Ohio 9344 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARQUES JAMES SHANNON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal Appeal from the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2015 CR 000863.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, Ashleigh Musick, Assistant Prosecutor, and Gabriel M. Wildman, Assistant Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH 44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Desirae D. DiPiero Chieffo, 7330 Market Street, Youngstown, OH 44512 (For Defendant-Appellant).
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Marques James Shannon, appeals from the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, resentencing him and denying his Motion to Withdraw Plea. The issue before this court is whether an appeal is wholly frivolous where a defendant claims his guilty plea was involuntary when he had expressed concerns about entering the plea and the court advised him of his rights and options surrounding entry of that plea. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the court below.
{¶2} On November 24, 2015, Shannon was indicted by the Trumbull County Grand Jury for the following: Felonious Assault (Count One), a felony of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D)(1)(a), with a pregnant victim specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.1423; two counts of Domestic Violence (Counts Two and Three), felonies of the third degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(4); Domestic Violence (Count Four), a felony of the fifth degree, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(5); and Resisting Arrest (Count Five), a misdemeanor of the second degree, in violation of R.C. 2921.33(A) and (D).
{¶3} On March 3, 2016, a Finding on Guilty Plea to the Amended-Indictment was filed. At the plea hearing, the State moved to dismiss the pregnant victim specification, as well as Count Three, in exchange for a plea of guilty to the remaining counts and an agreed sentence of three years in prison. The court reviewed the rights Shannon would be waiving by pleading guilty, which Shannon indicated he understood. When asked if he was satisfied with counsel, Shannon stated "not fully," citing arguments with counsel.
{¶4} The following exchange took place:
{¶5} The court indicated that it wanted Shannon to understand his rights and that no one was threatening him. Shannon said, "I don't want to go to trial" and stated he understood his counsel's advice. When asked if he was threatened or promised anything to enter the plea, he responded The trial court explained: "That's hanging out there, though, because that's the maximum sentence." The court then reviewed the elements of the crimes and the potential maximum penalties.
{¶6} Shannon indicated that he voluntarily signed the plea agreement, explaining "I had to sign it" and "take the three years." The court found Shannon guilty of Counts One, Two, Four, and Five, the presentence investigation was waived, and the matter proceeded to sentencing. When asked if he wanted to speak prior to the entry of his sentence, Shannon indicated "I'm innocent." The court twice asked if he would like to withdraw his plea and go to trial, to which Shannon responded negatively, reiterating counsel's advice that he would lose at trial. The court sentenced him to three years in prison on Count One, three years for Count Two, one year for Count Four, and 60 days for Count Five, all to run concurrent for a three-year sentence. This verdict was memorialized in a March 3, 2016 Entry on Sentence. A subsequent untimely request to appeal that judgment was denied by this court on June 27, 2016. State v. Shannon, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2016-T-0039, 2016-Ohio-4602.
{¶7} On August 11, 2016, Shannon filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea Pursuant to Criminal Rule 32.1, in which he argued various grounds to withdraw his plea and that certain offenses should have been merged.
{¶8} The trial court issued an Amended Entry on Sentence on November 7, 2016. It noted that a resentencing hearing had been held on October 4, 2016 to correct a merger issue. It found Counts One, Two and Four "shall merge for the purposes of sentencing," the State elected to proceed on Count One, and the court sentenced Shannon to three years in prison for that count, to be served concurrently with a 90-day sentence for Count Five. The court also denied the Motion to Withdraw.
{¶9} Shannon appealed from that Entry. Appellate counsel filed Shannon's appellate brief, pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel represented that she had found "no prejudicial errors," and requested permission to withdraw on the basis that the appeal is frivolous. Pursuant to Anders, "if counsel finds his client's case to be wholly frivolous, counsel should advise the court and request permission to withdraw; * * * the request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal; [and] * * * time must be allowed for the client to raise any points he chooses." State v. Spears, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0027, 2014-Ohio-2695, ¶ 5, citing Anders at 744. The appellate court must then conduct "a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders at 744.
{¶10} On August 9, 2016, this court granted Shannon 30 days to file a submission in support of his appeal, "if he so chooses." Appellate counsel's request to withdraw was held in abeyance.
{¶11} In her brief, appellate counsel raises one alleged error: "Pursuant to Anders v. California, and after conscientious examination of the record, appellate counsel concludes that there is not an appealable issue in the case at bar and Appellant's appeal should be dismissed." Counsel concludes that there were no prejudicial errors committed.
{¶12} Shannon raises several errors in a brief he filed on his own behalf:
{¶13} "[1.] The trial court committed prejudicial error by involving itself in the plea bargaining process and threatening appellant with the maximum sentence if he exercised his right to trial by jury.
{¶14} "[2.] Trial court erred by accepting an invalid guilty plea, therefore, defendant[']s plea is invalid and was not entered voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and trial court abused [its] discretion when it sentenced defendant contrary to law according to R.C. 2941.25(a) resulting in an invalid guilty plea. (sic)
{¶15} "[3.] Trial court made plain error by coercing defendant to plead guilty to a sentence that was contrary to law according to R.C. 2941.25(a) violating procedural rights under Ohio law, state and federal constitutions. (sic)
{¶16}
{¶17} To conduct a review of this matter, we will focus primarily on Shannon's alleged errors, as they overlap the areas reviewed by appellate counsel.
{¶18} In his first assignment of error, Shannon contends that the trial court improperly coerced him into entering a plea, rendering it involuntary.
{¶19} "A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea." Crim.R. 32.1. The phrase "manifest injustice" has been "variously defined," however, "it is clear that under such standard, a postsentence withdrawal motion is allowable only in extraordinary cases." State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977). "A motion made pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the good faith, credibility and weight of the movant's assertions in support of the motion are matters to be resolved by that court." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶20} (Citation omitted.) State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 7. We find no evidence that Shannon's plea was entered involuntarily, by "coercion" from the judge or otherwise.
{¶21} There is no question that Shannon was advised of the consequences of entering a plea, the rights he was waiving by entering such a plea, and that the court explained the charges and the potential maximum penalties, as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2). Shannon signed the plea agreement indicating his satisfaction and acceptance of the deal reached with the State. The main question that arises is basedon Shannon's equivocation entering the plea and his argument that the trial court improperly convinced him to enter an involuntary plea.
{¶22} In support of his contention that he was coerced or forced into pleading guilty, Shannon points to his various statements at the plea hearing that he felt he "had" to take the deal. A...
To continue reading
Request your trial