State v. FeathersState v. Feathers
Case Information
*1
[Cite as
State v. Feathers
,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2020-P-0070 2020-P-0071 Plaintiff-Appellee, 2020-P-0072
- v -
Criminаl Appeals from the DAVID E. FEATHERS, Court of Common Pleas Defendant-Appellant.
Trial Court No. 2016 CR 00695 O P I N I O N
Decided: August 23, 2021
Judgment: Affirmed Victor V. Vigluicci , Portage County Prosecutor, and Pamela J. Holder , Assistant Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plаintiff-Appellee). Thomas Rein , 820 West Superior Avenue, Suite 800, Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).
MATT LYNCH, J.
Defendant-appellant, David E. Feathers, appeals from the judgment of the
Portage County Court of Common Pleas, ordering him to serve three years of incarceration following the revocation of his probation for Failure to Comply. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.
On September 22, 2016, Feathers was indicted by the Portage County
Grand Jury for Failure to Comply with Order or Signal of Police Officer, a felony of the
*2
third degree, in violation of
On February 27, 2017, Feathers entered a plea оf guilty to the offense as charged in the indictment. The guilty plea was accepted by the trial court and the finding of guilt was memorialized in a Judgment Entry on the same date.
A sentencing hearing was held on May 15, 2017, аt which the court ordered Feathers to serve 180 days in jail with work release, 12 months of intensive supervision probation, and 36 months of general probation.
On July 19, 2019, the probation department filed a Motion to Revoke/Modify Probation on the grounds that Feathers pled guilty to various charges in the Ashland County Court of Common Pleas. A hearing was held on October 21, 2019, at which the trial court addressed motions to revoke in this case, Portage County Case No. 2016 CR 00695, and Portage County Case No. 2004 CR 00424, which involved convictions for Aggravated Burglary, Felonious Assault, and Domestic Violence. At the hearing, Feathers admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The court found Feathers “is no longer amenable to community control sanctions and I’m going to terminate his probation, impose the balance of the prison term [and] * * * [t]hat will run consecutive to anything from Ashland County that has not been fulfilled.” The court issued an October 23, 2019 Judgment Entry in which it ordered that Feathers be sentenced to a term of three years in prison for the offense of Failure to Comply, and ordered that the term run consecutive to the sentence in Portage County Case No. 2004 CR 00424. In the entry, it stated that the consecutive sentence “is neсessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the Defendant and consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness of the Defendant’s conduct and to the danger the defendant poses to the public.” *3 {¶6} On September 4, 2020, Feathers moved for a delayed appeal, which this court granted.
{¶7}
Feathers raises the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶8}
“[1.] Appellant did not enter his guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, or
voluntarily because the trial court failed to properly inform him of the maximum penalties
involved as required by
sentence without making the appropriate findings required by
from the entry of a defendant’s conviction. Statе v. Haworth , 11th Dist. Portage No. 2019-
P-0042,
court. In a September 4, 2020 motion, Feathers sought leave to file delayed appeals before this court, filing three separate notices of appeal from the February 27, 2017 entry accepting his plea of guilty to Failure to Comply, August 1, 2018 entry extending appellant’s intensive supervision probation, and the October 23, 2019 entry granting the motion to revoke and sentencing Feathers to serve three years in prison. This court granted the request for filing delayed appeals and consolidated the cases, although it stated the following: “For purposes of review and timеliness of the appeals, the October 23, 2019 final entry will be considered the appealed entry for all three appeals.” This court further found that Feathers stated “a satisfactory reаson for a delay of almost ten months filing his appeals.” We do not find that this allows Feathers to avoid the application of res
judicata and raise issues that should have been raised through a direct appeal over three years ago. This court did not find a justification for an over three-year delay in appealing from the 2017 entry of conviction and sentence and Feathers did not set forth such a *5 reason, providing only justifications relating to the delay in appealing from the 2019 entry. This court recognized that the October 23, 2019 entry is “the appealed entry.” Thus, this appеal does not serve as a direct appeal from the original entry of conviction and does not allow Feathers to now dispute whether his plea was entered voluntarily.
{¶14}
The first assignment оf error is without merit.
In his second assignment of error, Feathers argues that the lower court did
not make the necessary findings to justify a consecutive sentence as required by
including the findings underlying the sentence or modification given by the sentencing
court.”
make three distinct findings in order to require an offender to serve consecutive prison
terms: (1) that consecutive sentences are ‘necessary to protect the public from future
crime or to punish the offender’; (2) that consecutive sentences are ‘not disproportionate
to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the
*6
public’; (3) ‘and * * * also’ that one of the circumstances described in subdivision (a) to (c)
is present.” (Citation omitted.) State v. Claar , 11th Dist. Portage No. 2019-P-0091, 2020-
Ohio-1330, ¶ 11. “[A] trial court is required to make the[se] findings * * * at the sentencing
hearing and incorporate its findings into its sentencing entry, but it has no оbligation to
state reasons to support its findings.” Id. , citing State v. Bonnell ,
a plea of guilty to Failure to Comply, a felony of the third degree. As stated in the
indictment, he “operated a motor vehicle * * * so as willfully to elude or flee a police officer”
which “caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property” which
is a violation of
As this court has consistently held, “[w]hen
Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against appellant.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,
concur.