State v. DavisState v. Davis
Judgment: Affirmed.
Richard J. Perez, City of Willoughby Prosecutor, One Public Square, Willoughby, OH 44094 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Kenneth Davis, Jr., pro se, 1460 East 196th Street, Euclid, OH 44117 (Defendant-Appellant).
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Kenneth Davis, Jr., appeals his conviction in the Willoughby Municipal Court for Obstructing Justice. The issue to be determined in this case is whether a defendant who is not advised by the trial court of the effect of a guilty plea, pursuant to
{¶3} The report of pre-trial discussions, filed on December 2, 2010, indicates that the prosecutor recommended “reducing” the two charges in 10CRA03539 to only the Obstructing Justice charge. On the same date, Davis entered a plea of guilty to Obstructing Justice. The transcript of the plea hearing indicated that the prosecution recommended dismissing “the other two charges.” The court dismissed those charges and found Davis guilty of Obstructing Justice.
{¶4} On January 19, 2011, Davis was sentenced to 180 days in jail, with 90 days suspended, 45 to be served and 45 to be deferred for review in 120 days. The court ordered Davis to pay a $1,000 fine, with $700 suspended. Davis was also ordered to complete one year of probation.
{¶5} On February 1, 2011, the Judgment Entry of conviction was amended, nunc pro tunc, to include the Ohio Revised Code section number that was violated,
{¶6} On February 3, 2011, the trial court granted a stay of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal before this court.
{¶7} Davis timely appeals and asserts the following assignment of error:
{¶9} Davis argues that the trial court failed to comply with
{¶10} The State argues that
{¶11} “When reviewing a plea under
{¶12}
{¶13} We initially note that
{¶14} The applicable provision regarding the entry of a plea in this case is
{¶15} “In accepting a plea to a misdemeanor involving a petty offense, a trial court is required to inform the defendant only of the effect of the specific plea being entered.” State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211, 2007-Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677, paragraph one of the syllabus. In order to satisfy this requirement, the trial court “must inform the defendant of the appropriate language under
{¶16} The record reveals, and the State concedes, that the trial court did not inform Davis, either orally or in writing, of the effect of his guilty plea. The transcript of the hearing shows that no such information was given to Davis by the trial court. Thus, we find that the trial court did not comply with
{¶18} The Ohio Supreme Court has 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. In such circumstances, a court‘s failure to inform the defendant of the effect of his guilty plea as required by
{¶19} In the present case, there is no indication that Davis asserted his innocence at the plea hearing or at any other time in the proceedings. Moreover, Davis provides no explanation in his brief as to how he suffered prejudice and makes no claim that he would not have pled guilty had he been informed of the effect of his guilty plea. Instead, he asserts only that he pled guilty because the other charges would be dropped and he believed he would receive a reduced sentence. The record confirms that Davis gained a benefit from entering a guilty plea, as the trial court dismissed the two other drug-related charges, supporting the finding that Davis was aware of the effect of a guilty plea, made such a plea in anticipation of the dismissal of charges, and that the plea would have “otherwise been made.” Griggs at ¶ 12
{¶20} In the absence of a claim of innocence, in light of the benefit acknowledged by Davis himself, and due to Davis’ failure to assert any argument that the plea would not have been made but for the trial court‘s failure to inform Davis of the effect of his plea, the totality of the circumstances show that Davis was not prejudiced by the trial court‘s failure to inform him of the effect of pleading guilty. See Parish at ¶ 12 (where defendant did not claim her innocence and gained a benefit from not going to trial, i.e., avoiding the stress of trial, she suffered no prejudice); State v. Green, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-934, 2011-Ohio-6451, ¶ 12 (where the appellant failed to make a showing that he would not have entered his guilty plea “but for the trial court‘s failure to comply with
{¶22} The sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶23} Based on the foregoing, Davis’ conviction in the Willoughby Municipal Court, for Obstructing Justice, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.,
MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,
concur.