State v. CrowderState v. Crowder
Rendered on the 4th day of December, 2009.
. . . . . . . . . .
CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Aрpellee
JAMES S. ARMSTRONG, Atty. Reg. No. 0020638, 131 N. Ludlow Street, Suite 1311 Talbott Tower, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
DENNIS D. CROWDER, #596-756, London Correctional Institute, P. O. Box 69, London, Ohio 43140 Defendant-Appellant
. . . . . . . . . .
FROELICH, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant was indicted for one count of possеssion of drugs in violation of
{¶ 2} The drugs were found on the defendant during a pat down search when the police, with his permission, entered a motel room. The defendant filed a motion to suрpress the drugs and, after a hearing, the motion to suppress was denied. Appellant entered into a pleа agreement whereby he entered a plea of guilty to the mandatory crack offense and the heroin сount was dismissed. The defendant was sentenced to the minimum mandatory prison sentence of one year.
{¶ 3} A timely notiсe of appeal was filed and counsel was appointed. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, advising the сourt that he believes the appeal to be without merit and furnishing the court with a brief elaborating his reasoning. The Stаte filed a responsive brief requesting an opportunity to respond, should the court determine that an apрealable issue may exist. On June 23, 2009, the appellant was advised that he was granted sixty days in which to file a pro se brief assigning any errors for review by this court and that, absent such a brief, the appeal will be submitted for decision on the mеrits. No such brief has been filed.
{¶ 4} The case is now before us for our independent review of the record. Penson v. Ohio (1988), 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed. 2d, 300.
{¶ 5} The transcript of the plea reflects that the defendant was informed of his right to confront witnesses, subpoena witnesses in his own behalf, to remain silent, and to require
{¶ 6} The court also stated: “Do you understand that by pleading guilty you give up your right to a jury trial?” And the defendant answered “yes.” The court did not inform the defendant that the jury verdict in Ohio must be unanimous.
{¶ 7} “Initially, there is no explicit requirement under
{¶ 8} Citing State v. Bays (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 15, which in turn cited United States v. Martin (C.A. 6, 1983), 704 F.2d 267, State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70, 2006-Ohio-5283
{¶ 9} at ¶ 68, held that the trial court was not required to specifically advise the defendant оn the need for jury unanimity. See, also State v. Rogers, Muskingum App. No. CT 2008-0066, 2009-Ohio-4899, ¶ 11, for a list of cases including our holding in State v. Goens, Montgomery App. No. 19585, 2003-Ohio-5402, ¶ 19.
{¶ 10} The court also did not inquire of the defendant as to whether there were any thrеats or promises made to him in order to get him to plead guilty. “A guilty plea, if induced by promises or threats which deprivе it of the character of a voluntary act, is void.” State v. Milanovich (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d, 46, 49. However, it is clear from the record that
{¶ 11} The court аlso did not ask the defendant whether the statement of facts by the prosecutor were true, but rather asked “. . .basеd on those facts how do you plead to possession of crack cocaine greater than five, less than ten grams,” and the defendant responded “guilty.” The court did find that “there‘s a factual basis to support the chargе on the plea.” Similarly, the court did not explain the effect of a plea of guilty to the defendant although it did find thаt he “. . .understood. . .the effect of his plea. . . .”
{¶ 12} State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85, 2004-Ohio-4415, held that this right is “non-constitutional and therefore is subject to review under a stаndard of substantial compliance.” Id. at ¶ 12. The court found that a defendant who has entered a guilty plea without asserting actual innocence is presumed to understand that he has completely admitted his guilt; therefore the failurе to so inform him as required by
{¶ 13} Mr. Crowder told the judge he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that he had completed twelve years of school, that he had no problem reading the plea form, and he had no respоnse to the judge‘s request that he ask any questions before he signed the entry of waiver and plea form. In accepting a guilty plea, a trial court must substantially comply with
{¶ 14} We have reviewed the transcript and viewed the electronic record; we can find no arguable issue for appeal concerning whether, despite
{¶ 15} Defendant‘s trial counsel also lists “illegal patdown as a probable issuе for review” on this court‘s docket statement. However, the defendant entered a plea of guilty, thus waiving any argument concerning the court‘s ruling on the motion to suppress. State v. Perez-Diaz, Clark App. No. 06 CA 0130, 2008-Ohio-2722, ¶ 4 (internal citations omitted).
{¶ 16} Acknowledging this, defendant‘s appellate counsel‘s Anders brief asks whether trial counsel was “effective in promоting the guilty plea pursuant to plea agreement, which waived appellant‘s right to appeal the motion to suppress ruling?” The transcript of the plea reflects a plea and sentencing agreement whereby thе defendant received a one-year sentence with credit for all time served. However, there is nothing in the record to make a non-frivolous argument concerning ineffective assistance of counsel.
Judgment affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . .
DONOVAN, P.J. and FAIN, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Carley J. Ingram
James S. Armstrong
Dennis D. Crowder
Hon. Barbara P. Gorman