STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, - vs - DAVID W. CAUDELL, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. 2019-A-0062
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO
2020
[Cite as State v. Caudell, 2020-Ohio-1557.]
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2018 CR 00602.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Cecilia M. Cooper, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, Ohio 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Rick L. Ferrara, 2077 East 4th Street, 2nd Floor, Cleveland, Ohio 44114 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.
{1} Appellant, David W. Caudell (“Mr. Caudell“), appeals the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to concurrent sentences of seven years of incarceration for aggravated vehicular homicide, a felony of the second degree, and six months of incarceration for operating a vehicle while under the influence of a listed controlled substance or a listed metabolite of a controlled substance, a misdemeanor of the first degree, following his guilty pleas.
{3} After a careful review of the record and pertinent law, we find as follows: First, the trial court was not required to use the phrase “right to remain silent” or advise Mr. Caudell that no one could comment on his failure to testify. Second, the trial court explained Mr. Caudell‘s privilege against compulsory self-incrimination in a manner reasonably intelligible to him. Specifically, the trial court‘s statement that “you‘re not required to testify against yourself” effectively conveyed his right against compelled testimony, and Mr. Caudell acknowledged his understanding that he was waiving such a right. Therefore, Mr. Caudell‘s guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.
{4} Thus, we affirm the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas.
Substantive and Procedural History
{5} On the morning of May 3, 2018, Mr. Caudell was traveling westbound on State Route 84 from State Route 534 in Harpersfield Township. His vehicle traveled left of center and off the south side of the roadway, striking, head on, a vehicle that was traveling eastbound on State Route 84. The driver of the other vehicle sustained fatal injuries as a result of the crash.
{6} The Ohio State Patrol conducted a toxicology test from a urine sample Mr. Caudell provided shortly after the accident. The test results showed the presence of cocaine in Mr. Caudell‘s system.
{8} In April 2019, Mr. Caudell withdrew his former pleas of not guilty and entered written and oral pleas of guilty to Count 1 (aggravated vehicular homicide) and Count 3 (operating a vehicle while under the influence of a listed controlled substance or a listed metabolite of a controlled substance). At the plea hearing, the trial court engaged in a colloquy with Mr. Caudell pursuant to
{9} “[TRIAL COURT]: Do you understand that you‘re not required to testify against yourself?
{10} “[MR. CAUDELL]: Yes, Your Honor.
{11} “[TRIAL COURT]: Are you waiving that right?
{12} “[MR. CAUDELL]: Yes.”
{14} In June 2019, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Mr. Caudell to a mandatory seven years of incarceration on Count 1 and six months of incarceration on Count 3, to be served concurrently, no fine on Count 1, a mandatory fine of $375 on Count 3, court costs, and a lifetime driver‘s license suspension. The trial court subsequently issued a judgment entry memorializing Mr. Caudell‘s guilty pleas and sentences.
{15} Mr. Caudell appealed and sets forth the following sole assignment of error:
{16} “The trial court failed to comply with
Standard of Review
{17} This court reviews de novo whether the trial court accepted a plea in compliance with
Law and Analysis
{18} A criminal defendant‘s choice to enter a plea of guilty or no contest is a serious decision. State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶25. The benefit to a defendant of agreeing to plead guilty is the elimination of the risk of receiving a longer sentence after trial. Id. But, by agreeing to plead guilty, the defendant loses several constitutional rights. (Citations omitted.) Id. The exchange of certainty for some of the most fundamental protections in the criminal justice system will not be permitted unless
Crim.R. 11
{19}
{20} “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:
{21} “(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.
{22} “(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.
{23} “(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
{24} Before accepting a guilty or no-contest plea, the court must make the determinations and give the warnings required by
Strict Compliance
{25} A trial court‘s compliance with
{26} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the preferred method of informing a criminal defendant of his or her constitutional rights during the plea colloquy is to use the language contained in
The Trial Court‘s Compliance
{27} Relevant to this case is
{28} As indicated, at the plea hearing, the following exchange between the trial court and Mr. Caudell took place:
{29} “[TRIAL COURT]: Do you understand that you‘re not required to testify against yourself?
{30} “[MR. CAUDELL]: Yes, Your Honor.
{31} “[TRIAL COURT]: Are you waiving that right?
{32} “[MR. CAUDELL]: Yes.”
{33} Mr. Caudell argues that the trial court‘s advisement did not meet the “plain language” of
{34} The text of
{35} The “right to remain silent” has been described as a “term of art synonymous with the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” State v. Henderson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21425, 2006-Ohio-6306, ¶7. Courts have found that advising a defendant that he is waiving his or her “right to remain silent” is sufficient to explain the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination and complies with
{36} Mr. Caudell cites to State v. Gaines, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 102024, 2015-Ohio-2397, characterizing it as the Eighth District‘s reversal of a conviction for a trial court‘s failure to inform a defendant of his waiver of the right to remain silent and for that silence not to be commented on.
{37} In Gaines, the trial court informed the defendant he had the constitutional right “to remain silent and not to testify and [that] no one could comment on the fact that [he] did not testify at trial.” Id. at ¶7. The defendant asked whether this meant he did not have to testify at trial. Id. The trial court‘s answer was not responsive to the defendant‘s question. Id. Therefore, the Eighth District concluded that the record did not demonstrate that the defendant understood that he did not have to testify. Id. at ¶9.
{38} Gaines is distinguishable from the present case, since the language of the respective trial courts was substantially different, and since Mr. Caudell did not indicate any misunderstanding of the trial court‘s advisement. In addition, we have held that
{39} Mr. Caudell also cites to this court‘s decision in State v. Hayes, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2014-P-0044, 2016-Ohio-2794, which involved identical language to that at issue in this case. See id. at ¶9 (“And, sir, do you understand you‘re not required to testify against yourself?“). The defendant in Hayes argued that the trial court‘s advisement was insufficient because it did not tell him he had the right to remain silent throughout trial and that it could not be used against him. Id. at ¶13. We found the trial court‘s language to be legally sufficient because it “clearly imports” that the defendant “had an absolute right to remain silent.” Id. at ¶19.
{40} This court has found on at least three other occasions that a trial court‘s advisement containing identical language strictly complied with
{41} Mr. Caudell argues that the trial court‘s advisement in this case was insufficient for a reason not argued in Hayes: it informed him that there was no
{42} Mr. Caudell is correct that the trial court did not literally comply with
{43} The dictionary definition of “to require” includes “to demand as necessary or essential.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/require (accessed March 3, 2020). Therefore, the trial court‘s advisement informed Mr. Caudell that he could choose not to testify, since it was not necessary or essential. However, the dictionary definition of “to require” also includes “to impose a compulsion or command on; compel.” Id. Therefore, the trial court‘s advisement also effectively conveyed to Mr. Caudell that he could not be compelled to testify.
{44} Courts have found similar language to be in strict compliance with
{45} Similarly, in State v. McElroy, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 104639, et al., 2017-Ohio-1049, the Eighth District held that the trial court‘s use of the phrase “right not to testify at trial” encompassed the right against compelled testimony. Id. at ¶27.
{46} And in State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the trial court‘s advisement that the defendant had the “right to call witnesses to speak on your behalf” was a reasonably intelligible explanation of the
{47} By contrast, in State v. Singh, 141 Ohio App.3d 137 (11th Dist.2000), the trial court advised the defendant that “[y]ou could testify but you need not testify if you desire not to; do you understand that?” Id. at 142. This court held that the trial court‘s language failed to adequately apprise the defendant of his constitutional right against self-incrimination. Id. at 143. Unlike this case, the trial court‘s language in Singh encompassed only the defendant‘s choice whether to testify and not compulsory testimony.
{48} We conclude that the trial court explained Mr. Caudell‘s privilege against self-incrimination in a manner reasonably intelligible to Mr. Caudell and, thus, in strict compliance with
{49} Mr. Caudell‘s sole assignment of error is without merit.
{50} Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,
MATT LYNCH, J.,
concur.