State v. Watkins

• Decision Date: 05 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20AP-313,20AP-313
• Citation: 2020 Ohio 5203,162 N.E.3d 141
• Parties: STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David L. WATKINS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

162 N.E.3d 141

2020 Ohio 5203

STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.David L. WATKINS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20AP-313

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Rendered on November 5, 2020

On brief: Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellant. Argued: Seth Gilbert.

On brief: Ohio Justice and Policy Center, David A. Singleton, Michael L. Zuckerman, William J. Pohlman, and Terri L. McKee, for appellee. Argued: Michael L. Zuckerman.

DECISION

SADLER, P.J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, State of Ohio, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting, in part, the April 22, 2020 "emergency motion to withdraw guilty plea or in the alternative for temporary relief from judgment" of defendant-appellee, David L. Watkins. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

{¶ 2} On December 21, 2017, a Franklin County Grand Jury indicted appellee for possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.11, a felony of the first degree, and trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.03, also a felony of the first degree. A one-year firearm specification and a monetary forfeiture specification accompanied each count in the indictment. As a result of a plea agreement with the prosecutor, appellee pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine with a monetary forfeiture specification; the other charge and specifications were dismissed. On October 23, 2019, the trial court imposed a mandatory prison term of eight years as recommended by the parties and waived both the fine and court costs. A mandatory five-year term of post-release control was also imposed on appellee. The judgment entry of conviction and sentence contains the following language regarding appellee's health: "The Court notes that the Defendant has just had a kidney transplant and must be kept on a strict regiment of medications and recommends they be implemented immediately." (Oct. 23, 2019 Jgmt. Entry at 2.) On October 28, 2019, the trial court issued an order of forfeiture in the amount of $3,200.

{¶ 3} On April 22, 2020, while appellee was serving his prison sentence with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections ("DRC") at DRC's Noble Correctional Institution, appellee filed his "emergency motion to withdraw guilty plea or in the alternative for temporary relief from judgment." The motion seeks the following relief:

Because of underlying medical conditions, specifically immunosuppression, diabetes and hypertension, which individually and collectively heighten his risk for severe COVID-19 complications, including death, should he become infected with the disease, [appellee] moves to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1. If allowed to do so, Mr. [appellee] would re-plead guilty to drug trafficking and would expect to receive the same mandatory eight-year sentence. However, at his resentencing hearing, he would ask the court to allow him to remain in the community on home confinement until it is safe for him to return to prison once the threat from COVID-19 subsides. Alternatively, [appellee ] moves for temporary relief from judgment under Crim.R. 57(B) and Civ.R. 60(B)(5).

(Emphasis added.) (Def.'s Emergency Mot. to Withdraw Guilty Plea or in the Alternative for Temporary Relief From Jgmt. at 1.)

{¶ 4} At the motion hearing on May 6, 2020, the trial court expressed its desire to temporarily release appellee from confinement because appellee was at high risk of serious harm or death if infected with COVID-19, due to his comorbidities of recent kidney transplant, diabetes, and hypertension. Appellee's trial counsel admitted at the hearing that he was not aware of a single inmate at Noble Correctional Institution who had contracted COVID-19. The trial court noted that relief under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure would not be appropriate because Crim.R. 32.1 governed his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. As a result of the hearing, the trial court reserved ruling on appellee's motion and requested appellee's counsel inform the court if there were any inmates who subsequently tested positive for the COVID-19 virus at Noble Correctional Institution.

{¶ 5} On May 28, 2020, the trial court ordered the Franklin County Sheriff to convey appellant from Noble Correctional Institution to the court for a "Judicial Release Hearing." (May 28, 2020 Order to Transport at 1.) On June 4, 2020, the trial court held a second hearing on appellee's motion at which time the trial court was informed that a correction officer at Noble Correctional Institution had tested positive for COVID-19 but that no inmate had yet tested positive. Counsel agreed with the trial court that the "plea was properly taken" and that appellee was "not attacking * * * the legality or meeting all the Rule 11 requirements for the plea." (June 4, 2020 Tr. at 8.) The trial judge, nevertheless, informed the prosecutor he was "looking for a creative way to let [appellee] out." (June 4, 2020 Tr. at 7.) The trial court subsequently announced it's ruling on the record in relevant part as follows:

THE COURT: All right. This is a unique situation. Mr. Watkins is extremely at risk. Four weeks ago -- and it's been bothering me for four weeks, to be honest with you, * * * -- going [to] bed to night [sic], thinking if this guy gets it, he's going to die and it's on me.

It isn't really on me, because he put himself in a position to commit a crime, and it was a bad crime, but I would not want it on my conscience that this individual got COVID and died.

* * *

[A]t this time, I am going to grant the motion out of compassion, out of humanity. I think it's the right thing to do, you know. I guess I'm not violating the law totally, but if I am, so be it. Let the Court of Appeals tell me, and he'll go back to prison.

But for right now, I am going to grant a motion of bond of $10,000 recognizance. He will be under house arrest. He's not permitted to leave the house except for medical reporting and any legal appointments. It will be strict compliance. He's also to -- you know, I'm doing this over your objection.

(June 4, 2020 Tr. at 12-13.)

{¶ 6} In accordance with this ruling, the trial court issued the following judgment entry:

This matter came on for a hearing pursuant to the defendant's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea or in the Alternative for Temporary Relief from Judgment that was considered herein by the Court as a Motion to Withdraw the previously entered guilty plea under the provisions of CR R 32.1.

The court had a hearing on the motion on May 6, 2020 and after holding the motion in abeyance rescheduled it for hearing today. The defendant was transported from Noble Correctional and a hearing was held with the court and all counsel present.

For the reasons stated on the record at that hearing the Court hereby continues the hearing on the Motion to Withdraw the Guilty plea until September 10, 2020 at 9:00 AM, and further orders that in the interim the Defendant shall be released on a $10,000 Recognizance Bond with House Arrest. The defendant shall return to court that date to continue the remainder of his sentence unless the court determines it is not safe for him to return to prison at that time. The Court Disposition sheet is attached hereto. The State made a Motion for a Stay of the court's decision and order, which is hereby denied.

(Emphasis added.) (June 9, 2020 Entry at 1.)

{¶ 7} On June 11, 2020, appellant filed a notice of appeal to this court from the June 9, 2020 judgment entry, a motion to stay the trial court judgment, and a motion for leave to appeal. On June 25, 2020, this court issued the following journal entry:

Appellant State of Ohio's June 11, 2020 motions for a stay of the trial court's judgment pending appeal and to expedite this appeal are denied. This appeal will be scheduled for oral argument promptly following the completion of briefing. The state's June 11, 2020 motion for leave to appeal will be determined at such time as the court addresses the merits of this appeal as taken as of claimed right.

{¶ 8} On September 14, 2020, appellant filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal with the trial court's September 10, 2020 "criminal case processing sheet." (Mot. to Supp. the Record at 1.) On September 14, 2020, this court issued a journal entry stating that appellant's motion "shall be submitted to the court at such time that court determines the merits of this appeal." (Journal Entry at 1.)

{¶ 9} For good cause shown, appellant's September 14, 2020 motion is granted, and the record on appeal is hereby supplemented with the September 10, 2020 criminal case processing sheet. The criminal case processing sheet shows the trial court continued the hearing on appellee's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to January 4, 2021.¹ Accordingly, appellee remains on house arrest.

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶ 10} Appellant assigns the following as trial court error:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING DEFENDANT'S RELEASE ON RECOGNIZANCE BOND PENDING THE UNJUSTIFIED CONTINUANCE OF A HEARING ON THE FACIALLY MERITLESS MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA WHEN THE ORDER OF RELEASE AMOUNTED TO A SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE THAT WAS BEYOND THE COURT'S JURISDICTION AND AUTHORITY TO GRANT.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Assignment of Error

{¶ 11} In appellant's assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred when it issued the June 9, 2020 order temporarily releasing appellee from prison pending the court's ruling on appellee's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In response, appellee contends the trial court had authority to release him on bond pending a determination of appellee's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellee has also argued this court does not have jurisdiction of this appeal and urges us to dismiss the appeal because the trial court's June 9, 2020 judgment entry is not a final, appealable order.

{¶ 12} At the outset of our discussion and to provide context for our ruling, we note the Supreme Court of Ohio...