STATE OF OHIO v. DAVID A. HENSON II
CASE NO. CA2021-12-029
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO FAYETTE COUNTY
8/15/2022
2022-Ohio-2828
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM FAYETTE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI 20210218
Steven H. Eckstein, for appellant.
OPINION
PIPER, P.J.
{1} Appellant, David Henson, was indicted on two counts of sexual battery by a Fayette County Grand Jury. On October 7, 2021, Henson entered into a plea agreement with the state, pleading guilty to both counts of sexual battery, felonies in the third-degree. The trial court sentenced Henson to 60 months in prison on one count and 48 months in prison on the other count and ordered those terms be served consecutively for a total prison
{2} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ACCEPTED THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT‘S GUILTY PLEA WITHOUT ENSURING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT UNDERSTOOD THE EFFECT OF HIS PLEA, IN VIOLATION OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT‘S RIGHTS UNDER
{3} In his sole assignment of error, Henson alleges the trial court erred by accepting his guilty plea because the record does not support the finding that he understood the effect of his guilty plea.
{4} When a defendant enters a guilty plea in a criminal case, the plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. State v. Parker, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-12-229, 2020-Ohio-414, ¶ 18. “Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Ackley, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2013-04-010, 2014-Ohio-876, ¶ 8.
{5} According to
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:
* * *
(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.
{6} The supreme court has addressed a trial court‘s compliance with
{7} On appeal, Henson argues that the trial court failed to comply with
{8} We have thoroughly and carefully reviewed the entirety of the plea hearing and conclude that the trial court advised Henson of all the constitutional requirements of
{9} The trial court confirmed that Henson was making his plea voluntarily and that he understood the maximum penalty involved. If anything, the trial court went to additional lengths to conclude that Henson understood the effect of his guilty plea. The trial court stated that it was not going to place him on probation and was going to impose a prison sentence. The trial court fully explained postrelease control and the requirement that Henson register as a sex offender. The trial court also explained the rights Henson was waiving by pleading guilty, including his right to a 12-person jury trial, to confront witnesses, to have compulsory process, and the state‘s burden of proof at a trial in which he could not be compelled to testify. The prosecutor read the relevant facts into the record, which Henson confirmed was accurate. Following the conclusion of the colloquy, Henson stated that he was voluntarily entering his plea and then proceeded to enter his guilty plea. Accordingly, we find no constitutional infirmity in Henson‘s guilty plea and conclude that he entered his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Henson‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{10} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL and BYRNE, JJ., concur.