State v. Anglen
2015 Ohio 4070
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2012 Anglen purchased a 2012 Buick financed by PNC Bank. She created a fraudulent PNC termination-of-lien statement, used it to obtain a replacement title, and then obtained a $10,000 LoanMax (Drummond Financial) loan using the car as collateral.
- PNC’s fraud investigation led to an 11-count indictment charging forgery, tampering with records, grand theft, securing writings by deception, and a title offense.
- In August 2014 Anglen pleaded no contest to all counts. She later moved to withdraw her plea before sentencing; the trial court held a hearing and denied the motion.
- At a restitution hearing the court ordered five years community control and restitution: $35,539.91 to PNC Bank and $10,000 to Drummond Financial.
- Anglen appealed, arguing (1) her no contest plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because the court did not explain the effect of a no contest plea; (2) the court abused its discretion by denying her presentence motion to withdraw the plea; and (3) the restitution awards were erroneous. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Anglen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the no contest plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made (Crim.R. 11 compliance) | Court substantially complied; plea was voluntary and defendant understood consequences. | Court failed to inform Anglen of the effect of a no contest plea and misstated restitution authority, so plea was invalid. | Affirmed — Court’s failure to recite Crim.R. 11(B)(2) language was nonconstitutional and not prejudicial; Anglen did not assert innocence and subjectively understood consequences. |
| 2. Whether denial of presentence motion to withdraw plea was an abuse of discretion | Court held a full hearing, counsel competent, Crim.R. 11 complied, and withdrawal was based on mere change of heart / irrelevant newly discovered date evidence. | Sought to withdraw based on changed mind and allegedly newly discovered evidence (BMV date discrepancy) that could support a defense. | Affirmed — Trial court did not abuse discretion; change of heart insufficient and state produced evidence undermining the claimed newly discovered defense. |
| 3. Whether restitution to Drummond Financial and PNC Bank was authorized and correctly calculated (R.C. 2929.18) | Both entities suffered economic loss proximately caused by crimes; amounts reflected outstanding balances and accrued interest/fees. | Drummond not named in indictment and did not qualify as a victim; court failed to adequately account for Anglen’s prior payments. | Affirmed — Drummond qualifies as a victim; record supports $10,000 to Drummond and $35,539.91 to PNC given contractual arrangements, accrued interest, and accounting for prior payments. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85, 814 N.E.2d 51 (2004) (failure to inform defendant of nonconstitutional plea effects reviewed for substantial compliance; prejudice required to invalidate plea)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990) (substantial-compliance test: defendant must subjectively understand implications of plea)
- State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211, 877 N.E.2d 677 (2007) (errors in advising effect of plea not prejudicial where defendant did not assert innocence)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 897 N.E.2d 621 (2008) (applying Griggs substantial-compliance analysis)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992) (standard for presentence plea-withdrawal motions; trial court discretion and requirement to determine reasonable legitimate basis)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 428 N.E.2d 863 (1980) (factors showing no abuse of discretion in denying plea-withdrawal: competent counsel, full Crim.R.11 hearing, full withdrawal hearing, court gave fair consideration)