STATE OF OHIO v. MICHAEL HILL
Appellate Case No. 2019-CA-11
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY
January 3, 2020
2020-Ohio-7
Trial Court Case No. 2018-CR-254; (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
OPINION
Rendered on the 3rd day of January, 2020.
. . . . . . . . .
JOHN M. LINTZ, Atty. Reg. No. 0097715, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County Prosecutor‘s Office, 50 East Columbia Street, Suite 449, Springfield, Ohio 45502 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
CARL BRYAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0086838, 120 West Second Street, Suite 603, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attornеy for Defendant-Appellant
. . . . . . . . . . . .
TUCKER, J.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In April 2018, Hill was indicted on eight drug offenses. The indictment included a forfeiture spеcification regarding currency seized upon Hill‘s arrest. Following negotiations, Hill pleaded guilty to two counts: possession of cocaine (a third degree felony) and aggravated possession of drugs (a fifth degree felony). The rеmaining counts were dismissed, and Hill agreed to forfeit the currency.
{¶ 3} Hill was on PRC when he entered the guilty pleas. The following PRC discussion occurred during the plea hearing:
THE COURT: Are you currently on probation, community control, post-releasе control or parole?
THE DEFENDANT: Parole.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Post-release control, Your Honor.
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, post-release. THE COURT: Do you understand that by entering a guilty plea in this case your post-release control could be terminated and in addition to the sentence you receive in this case, you could be sentencеd to the greater or for the greater of one year or the amount of time you have remaining on post-release control, and it will be mandatory to that being consecutive to your sentence in this case?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
{¶ 4} Also during the plеa hearing, in response to the trial court‘s request to set forth the terms of the parties’ agreement, the State stated the following:
[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. We have reached a negotiated plea in this case.
That agrеement is that upon a plea to count four, possession of cocaine, a felony of the third degree and count seven, that being possession of a Scheduled II controlled substance, specifically the hydrocоdone, a felony of the fifth degree, the State of Ohio would move to dismiss the remaining counts in the indictment. There would be an agreement of the forfeiture of $2,755.60.
The facts that the State would rely upon is that on or about the 5th day of February 2018, in Clark County, Ohio, the defendant, Michael Hill, did possess or have control over cocaine in an amount greater than or equal to 10 grams but less than 20 grams; and he also did have a possession of the Scheduled II controlled substance hydrocodone in an amount less than
bulk amount. All these occurred in Clark County, Ohio.
Immediately thereafter, the following exchange occurred between the trial court, Hill‘s attorney, and Hill.
THE COURT: Is that a full statement of the plea agreement?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor. It is.
THE COURT: Do you understand the terms of the plea agreement, Mr. Hill?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
* * *
{¶ 5} The trial court sentencеd Hill to a three-year prison term for possession of cocaine and to a one-year prison term for aggravated possession of drugs. The trial court ordered that these sentences be served consecutively. The trial court also terminated Hill‘s PRC and ordered that Hill consecutively serve the remaining PRC period of 547 days. Defense counsel thereafter filed a motion requesting that the trial court reduce Hill‘s sentence. The trial court overrulеd the motion. This appeal followed.
Assignments of Error
{¶ 6} Hill asserts two assignments of error as follows:
Mr. Hill‘s plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the trial court failed to inform him of its authority to terminate his PRC and sentence him to a consecutive prison term in addition to any sentence for the charges to which he was pleading.
Mr. Hill‘s plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the facts offered into the record upon which the state would rely on for a
conviction omitted an essential element.
PRC and the Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) Maximum Penalty Advisement
{¶ 7} Due process mandates that a guilty plea be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 25. Compliance with
{¶ 8} Turning then to the maximum penalty advisement that is required when a defendаnt is on PRC,
(A) Upon the conviction of or plea of guilty to a felony by a person on post-release control at the time of the commission of the felony, the court may terminate the term of post-release control, and the court may do either of the following regardless of whether the sentencing court or another court of this state imposed the original prison term for which the person is on post-release control: (1) In addition to any рrison term for the new felony, impose a prison term for the post-release control violation. The maximum prison term for the violation shall be the greater of twelve months or the period of post-release control for the earlier felony. In all cases, any prison term imposed for the violation shall be reduced by any prison term that is administratively imposed by the parole board as a post-release control sanction. A prison term imposed for the violation shall be served consecutively to any prison term imposed for the new felony. The imposition of a prison term for the post-release control violation shall terminate the period of рost-release control for the earlier felony.
In Bishop, the Supreme Court concluded that when, as here, a defendant is on PRC at the time a plea is entered, the
{¶ 9} Hill asserts the trial court‘s failure to inform him that it was the trial court‘s option (as opposed to the parole board‘s option) to terminate his PRC and impose the additional consecutive sentence constitutes a complete failure to comply with
Factual Recitation at the Plea Hearing
{¶ 10} Hill asserts, and the State is willing to concede, based upon State v. Davis, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-49, 2019-Ohio-1904, that Hill‘s guilty pleas were not knоwing, intelligent, and voluntary because the State, during its recitation of the facts supporting the pleas, stated that Hill possessed, instead of knowingly possessed, the drugs at issue. In contrast, we conclude that Davis is distinguishable, and that the record suрports the conclusion that Hill subjectively understood the nature of the two counts to which he pleaded guilty.
{¶ 11} The State has no obligation at the plea hearing to set forth the factual basis for a guilty plea. State v. Riddle, 2017-Ohio-1199, 88 N.E.3d 475, ¶ 39 (2d Dist.). This is so because а guilty plea is a complete admission to the facts contained in the indictment. Id. But
{¶ 12} Where, as here, the indictment correctly informed the defendant of the nature of the charge, the defendant had an adequate opportunity to consult with counsel, and there is nothing in the record to suggest the defendant did not understand the nature of the charge, “slight variations” between the indictment and the State‘s factual statement will not “create a presumption” that the defendant did not understand the nature of the charge. State v. Greathouse, 158 Ohio App.3d 135, 2004-Ohio-3402, 814 N.E.2d 502, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.). In such a circumstance, the reсord allows the conclusion that the defendant subjectively understood the nature of the charge.
{¶ 13} In Davis, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-49, 2019-Ohio-1904, Brandon Davis was indicted for and pleaded guilty to burglary in violation of
{¶ 14} In Davis, we concluded that Davis‘s plea was not knоwing, intelligent, and voluntary. Based upon Davis‘s statement in response to the trial court‘s elements discussion and question, we concluded that he thought the State‘s burden of proof was less than the State‘s actual burden and that the trial court fаiled in its
{¶ 15} In contrast, there is no indication in this case that Hill similarly misunderstood the burden of proof. Instead, the record reflects a slight variation between the indictmеnt language and the State‘s factual recitation (omission, as to both counts, of the word “knowing“), an adequate opportunity for Hill and counsel to consult, and no other indication that Hill may not have understood the nature of each possession offense. Upon this record, we conclude that Hill subjectively understood the nature of the two possession counts. Thus, the trial court substantially complied with
Conclusion
{¶ 16} Having overruled Hill‘s two assignments of error, the judgment of the Clark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
WELBAUM, P.J., concurs.
DONOVAN, J., concurs in judgment only.
John M. Lintz
Carl Bryan
Hon. Douglas M. Rastatter