STATE OF OHIO v. TIMOTHY S. ACKLEY
CASE NO. CA2013-04-010
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO MADISON COUNTY
3/10/2014
[Cite as State v. Ackley, 2014-Ohio-876.]
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI20120051
Jeffrey A. McCormick, 122 South Main Street, Washington C.H., Ohio 43162, for defendant-appellant
PIPER, J.
{1} Defendant-appellant, Timothy Ackley, appeals his convictions in the Madison County Court of Common Pleas after entering guilty pleas to aggravated vehicular homicide.
{2} During the morning and afternoon hours of April 7, 2012, Ackley played golf and consumed alcohol at the Thornapple Golf Course. Ackley later drove his pickup truck away from the golf course, and multiple witnesses saw Ackley drive erratically, veer off the
{3} Several drivers stopped and tried to offer assistance to the two motorcycle riders and Ackley. These motorists saw Ackley move his truck back and forth, trying to drive it away while the bodies of the motorcyclists were still partially pinned beneath the truck. The other drivers stopped Ackley from fleeing the scene and also stopped him from trying to lift and drag the victims’ bodies away from his truck. The drivers also heard Ackley making arrangements over the phone for someone to come and pick him up, and take him away from the scene.
{4} Eventually, police arrived at the scene and interviewed the drivers who had stopped. The drivers indicated to the officers that Ackley smelled of alcohol and shared their belief that he was intoxicated. Ackley was arrested and ultimately charged with two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide. Ackley then made various statements to officers, warning them that he was in the KKK and would bring the weight of the “clan” down upon the officers. Ackley also became very belligerent while officers were investigating the accident.
{5} Ackley filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to police during the investigation. The trial court considered Ackley‘s motion to suppress, and overruled the motion. The matter then proceeded to trial. On the morning that Ackley‘s trial was set to commence, Ackley pled guilty to both counts of aggravated vehicular homicide as charged in the indictment. During the plea hearing, the trial court indicated that while there was a presumption of a prison sentence, such sentence was not mandatory and that Ackley could
{6} APPELLANT‘S GUILTY PLEAS WERE NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY, AND VOLUNTARILY MADE DUE TO THE TRIAL COURT‘S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL RULE OF PROCEDURE 11(C)(2)(a).
{7} Ackley argues that his plea was not constitutionally sound because the trial court failed to advise him that a mandatory prison sentence is required as a result of an aggravated vehicular homicide conviction.
{8} “When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 7.
In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and doing all of the following:
(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.
(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no
contest, and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentence. (c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant‘s favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.
{9} A trial court must strictly comply with
{10} Ackley was charged with two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide in violation of
{12} After reviewing the record, and based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea, we do not find that Ackley subjectively understood the implications of his plea and the rights he waived. The trial court failed to inform Ackley that convictions for aggravated vehicular homicide required a mandatory prison term and that he was not eligible for community control. To further enhance the misunderstanding Ackley had of his plea, the trial court erroneously informed Ackley that it was theoretically possible that no prison sentence would be imposed, and instead, that he was eligible for community control.
{13} Given the misstatement that he could possibly receive no term of incarceration upon conviction, we cannot conclude that Ackley would have otherwise made his plea. This is especially true where Ackley decided to change his plea on the morning of trial, and there was no extended period of negotiation between him and the state to reach a plea agreement. According to the state‘s brief, Ackley “somewhat unexpectedly to the State and the court” elected to change his plea, and did not receive anything, such as a diminution in charges or a suggested lenient sentence, in return for his plea.
{14} Once he proceeded to the plea hearing, Ackley was erroneously told that he
{15} Having found that Ackley‘s guilty plea was not voluntary, his sole assignment of error is sustained.
{16} Judgment reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.