STATE OF OHIO v. JEANNIE L. BATDORF
Appellate Case Nos. 2020-CA-1 & 2020-CA-2
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GREENE COUNTY
September 11, 2020
2020-Ohio-4395
DONOVAN, J.
Trial Court Case Nos. 2019-CR-525 & 2019-CR-526
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
KAREN S. MILLER, Atty. Reg. No. 0071853, P.O. Box 341274, Dayton, Ohio 45434
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
OPINION
Rendered on the 11th day of September, 2020.
DONOVAN, J.
{¶ 2} The record establishes that on August 23, 2019, Batdorf was indicted in Case No. 2019-CR-525 on one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs (Count I) and one count of aggravated possession of drugs (Count II). The charges in Case No. 2019-CR-525 related to an incident that occurred on February 22, 2019. On the same day, Batdorf was indicted in Case No. 2019-CR-526 for one count of aggravated trafficking in drugs (Count I) and one count of aggravated possession of drugs (Count II). The charges in Case No. 2019-CR-526 related to an incident that occurred on April 7, 2019. In both cases, the indictments contained forfeiture specifications for drugs, instruments of criminal offenses, and cash. Batdorf was arraigned on both cases on August 30, 2019, and she pled not guilty to all of the charged offenses. At that time, charges were already pending against Batdorf in Case No. 2018-CR-675.
{¶ 3} In early November 2019, at a pretrial conference related to all three cases,
{¶ 4} Also on January 2, 2020, Batdorf pled guilty in Case No. 2019-CR-526 to Count I, aggravated trafficking in drugs, as well as the forfeiture specifications contained in the indictment. In return for Batdorf‘s guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss Count II, aggravated possession of drugs. The trial court accepted Batdorf‘s guilty plea and imposed a prison term of three years. The trial court also sentenced Batdorf to eight years in Case No. 20180-CR-675. The trial court ordered Batdorf‘s sentences in Case Nos. 2019-CR-525, 2019-CR-526, and 2018-CR-675 to be served concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of eight years in prison, consistent with the parties’ plea agreement.
{¶ 5} Batdorf now appeals from her convictions.
{¶ 6} Batdorf‘s sole assignment of error is as follows:
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT‘S CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN SHE ENTERED
GUILTY PLEAS THAT WERE NOT KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, AND INTELLIGENTLY MADE, IN PART DUE TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, AND IN PART DUE TO A DEFICIENT PLEA COLLOQUY AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED INVALID.
{¶ 7} Batdorf contends that her guilty pleas in Case Nos. 2019-CR-525 and 2019-CR-526 were not made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, because she received ineffective assistance of counsel and the trial court‘s
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
{¶ 8} A plea of guilty is a complete admission of guilt. State v. Faulkner, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2013-CA-43, 2015-Ohio-2059, ¶ 9. Consequently, a guilty plea waives all appealable errors, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, except to the extent that the errors precluded the defendant from knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entering his or her guilty plea. State v. Frazier, 2016-Ohio-727, 60 N.E.3d 633, ¶ 81 (2d Dist.). If a defendant pleads guilty on the advice of counsel, he or she must demonstrate
{¶ 9} “For counsel to render effective assistance to a criminal defendant, [the defendant] should, at the least, understand the basis of the criminal charges and possible defenses of those charges.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Dalton, 153 Ohio App.3d 286, 2003-Ohio-3813, 793 N.E.2d 509, ¶ 29 (10th Dist.). “‘[I]f an attorney does not grasp the basics of the charges and the potential defenses to them, an accused may well be stripped of the very means that are essential to subject the prosecution‘s case to adversarial testing.‘” Id., quoting Scarpa v. Dubois, 38 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir.1994).
{¶ 10} Put simply, due to her guilty plea, Batdorf may raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on her counsel‘s advice to plead guilty to aggravated trafficking of drugs only if her counsel‘s alleged error rendered her plea other than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. As the reviewing court, we must therefore determine whether the trial court substantially complied with
{¶ 11} At Batdorf‘s plea hearing on January 2, 2020, the following exchange occurred:4
Batdorf: Yes.
Q: And you are a U.S. citizen?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. * * * [I]n the past 24 hours, have you had any drugs, alcohol, medicine, pills, or related-type substances?
A: No.
Q: As you sit here right now, are you alert, clear of mind, not under the influence of any substances, and totally capable of understanding what we are doing here today?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, have you and your Counsel together discussed the nature of the charges you‘re facing in your respective cases?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you understand what these offenses accuse you of doing?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you also aware of the facts that are the basis of the charges that the State of Ohio provided to you and your attorney through the discovery package that included the police reports and witness statements?
A: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: Have you told your attorney everything that you think your Counsel needs to know in order to fully and properly represent you?
A: Yes.
Q: Has your Counsel answered your questions?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you satisfied with the legal advice you receive [sic] so far?
A: Yes.
* * *
Q: * * * Has anyone caused you to feel like you have no choice but to plead guilty in your case? And what I mean by that is, you also have the choice to have a jury trial.
A: Right. I‘ve agreed to this.
Q: Okay. And have you felt rushed in any way in coming to your decision?
A: No.
Q: Has anyone caused you to feel pressured, coerced, compelled, manipulated, or frightened in any way in pleading guilty today?
A: No.
Q: From what you‘ve told me, can the record reflect * * * that your decision to enter a plea today is a decision you are making on your own; it is a free
A: Yes.
* * *
Q: When we end the case in this manner, you‘ll be giving up the following Constitutional Rights:
The right to a speedy and public trial to a Jury;
The right to compulsory process, to require witnesses to come to trial to testify in [sic] your behalf;
The right to require the State to prove you guilty at trial beyond a reasonable doubt;
The right to confront witnesses who testify against you by cross-examining those witnesses;
And the right not to be compelled to be a witness against yourself at trial.
My first question is: Do you understand what those rights mean?
A: Yes.
Q: And you are willing to waive them, or give them up, in order to go forward with a change of plea?
A: Yes.
* * *
Q: Now, Ms. Batdorf this tells me that you‘re entering a plea to following charges:
In Case Number 525, to Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs, a felony of the first degree, with a forfeiture of cash in the amount of $2,264.21, as well as forfeiture of the drugs that apparently were seized.
In Case Number 526, a plea to Aggravated Trafficking in Drugs, a felony of the third degree. This case with a forfeiture spec of $211.80 of case monies as well as forfeiture of the drugs.
Is that your understanding?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you appreciate for a felony of the first degree and a felony of the third degree that the maximum sentence you could receive from these two cases would be 14 years of imprisonment?
A: Yes.
Q: And the case – the first degree felony Case Number 525, whatever that sentence is must be a mandatory prison sentence –
A: Yes.
Q: -- probation is not an option; do you understand that?
A: Yes.
(Emphasis added.) Plea Transcript p. 9-19.
{¶ 12} Shortly thereafter, the following exchange occurred between the trial court and Batdorf:
Trial Court: Ms. Batdorf, your plea agreement says, in consideration of the guilty pleas to Count I in Case Number 525, and Count I in Case Number 526, felonies of the first degree and third degree respectively, the State
Defendant also agrees to all forfeiture specifications. State and Defendant stipulate that Defendant will serve an eight-year mandatory prison term 19 CR 525, a three-year prison term in 526 to run concurrently to one another, and also concurrently to a sentence previously imposed by this Court in 18 CR 675.
What I just read is that your understanding of the position of the police and Prosecutor in your case?
Batdorf: Yes.
Q: Are there any other deals or conditions or promises you think are favorable to you from the State of Ohio that I have not read?
(Whereupon, [Defense Counsel] confers with Defendant Jeannie Batdorf.)
A: No, sir. I‘m fine.
Q: Now, Ms. Batdorf, I will just tell you right upfront before we go any further, I will honor the agreement that‘s been reached here, and I will impose the agreed upon sentence.
Because I will do so, do you understand that you may appeal anything the Court has done in this case with the singular exception of the actual eight-year sentence the Court imposes; do you understand that?
A: Yes.
Id. at p. 22-23.
{¶ 13} Upon review, we conclude that the record does not establish that Batdorf
Trial Court‘s Crim.R. 11 Colloquy
{¶ 14} Batdorf argues that the judge did not inform her that the sentences in Case Nos. 2019-CR-525 and 2019-CR-526, which were run concurrently to her sentence in Case No. 2018-CR-675, in which she had entered a guilty plea just one week prior, would not be affected by the outcome of her appeal of the 2018 case. She asserts that this ”was a non-constitutional right affecting her sentence that should have been fully explained during the plea colloquy.” (Emphasis sic.) Appellant‘s Brief, p. 9. Batdorf does not cite to any case law or statute which supports her argument, and we reject this argument.
{¶ 15} Rather, the record establishes that the trial court informed Batdorf of the nature of the charges against her, the maximum sentences that she faced, and the constitutional rights that she waived by foregoing a trial. Prior to accepting the plea, the trial court asked Batdorf whether she understood what she was doing, whether she was acting of his own free will and not as the result of any promises aside from those incorporated in the plea agreement, and whether he wanted the court to accept the plea. Batdorf responded to all of these questions in the affirmative. Batdorf acknowledged that she had discussed his case with her attorney, including the elements of the offenses with which she was charged, and, most importantly, her potential defenses. Batdorf stated that her attorney had gone over the plea forms with her and that she was satisfied with her attorney‘s representation.
{¶ 16} The record reflects that Batdorf knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement, which provided significant benefits to her. The State dismissed two of the felony charges against Batdorf, which allowed her to face a significantly lesser sentence than if she had been convicted of all of the charges against her. At no point did Batdorf express any confusion regarding any of the information provided by the trial court in its
{¶ 18} Batdorf‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 19} Batdorf‘s assignment of error having been overruled, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
HALL, J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies sent to:
Marcy A. Vonderwell
Karen S. Miller
Hon. Stephen Wolaver