State of Ohio v. Charlie S. Hines
Court of Appeals No. E-13-054
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY
May 9, 2014
[Cite as State v. Hines, 2014-Ohio-1996.]
Trial Court No. 2012-CR-289
Karin L. Coble, for appellant.
* * * * *
YARBROUGH, P.J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Charlie Hines, appeals the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to a total of 60 months in prison following his plea of
A. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On July 11, 2012, an indictment was filed against Hines relating to a string of incidents involving improper sexual contact with his stepdaughter. The 11-count indictment was comprised of one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of
{¶ 3} Hines initially entered a plea of not guilty. He then moved to suppress an audio recording that was obtained at the police station during police questioning, but his motion to suppress was denied. Thereafter, Hines entered into plea negotiations with the state, and an agreement was reached in which Hines agreed to plead guilty to two counts of sexual battery in exchange for the state’s dismissal of the remaining charges. In addition, the plea agreement provided that Hines “shall be classified as a tier 3 [sex] offender, no community notification requested or found applicable.”
{¶ 4} After the foregoing agreement was reached by the parties, a plea hearing was held at which the state recited the terms of the plea agreement. Relevant to this appeal, the state indicated: “The Defendant shall be classified as a Tier III offender by statute, and the State has put in here that there will be no community notification requested or found to be applicable. If you read the statute that’s why – there’s certain requirements
{¶ 5} At sentencing, the court did not address the community notification requirement. Further, the sentencing entry does not specify whether Hines is subject to community notification. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a prison sentence of 30 months as to each count, and ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. Hines’ timely appeal followed.
B. Assignment(s) of Error
{¶ 6} On appeal, Hines assigns the following errors for our review:
Assignment of Error I: Appellant’s guilty plea was involuntary and unknowing when the trial court failed to substantially comply with
Crim.R. 11 by informing appellant of the punitive consequences of his plea.Assignment of Error II: The trial court erred in sentencing appellant to consecutive sentences.
Assignment of Error III: The trial court failed to state any reasons for disapproving appellant’s eligibility for an Intensive Program Prison (IPP).
{¶ 7} In his first assignment of error, Hines argues that the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea despite the fact that it was not knowingly and voluntarily given. Specifically, Hines contends that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed, as purportedly required under
{¶ 8} Before accepting a guilty plea,
{¶ 10} Here, Hines concedes that he was adequately informed of his constitutional rights prior to entering his guilty plea. However, he argues that the trial court failed to substantially comply with
{¶ 11} In his first alleged error, Hines argues that the state induced him into entering the guilty plea by promising him that he would not be subject to community notification requirements as part of his registration as a sex offender. As noted above, the state did, in fact, include the following statement in the written plea agreement: “[Hines] shall be classified as a tier 3 [sex] offender, no community notification requested or found applicable.” As promised, the state reiterated this statement at the plea hearing. Contrary to Hines’ assertion, we find no evidence in the record that demonstrates that the state requested community notification in this case. Rather, the state fulfilled its promise
{¶ 12} Next, Hines contends that the trial court failed to inform him of the consequences of his tier III sex offender classification, namely that such classification would include community notification requirements. In support of his argument, Hines cites to State v. Hawkins, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2012-CA-49, 2013-Ohio-2572. In Hawkins, the court held that the trial court did not comply with
{¶ 13} Accordingly, Hines’ first assignment is well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 14} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas is reversed and Hines’ guilty plea is vacated. Hines’ remaining assignments of error are moot. This matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Costs are assessed to the state pursuant to
Judgment reversed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Arlene Singer, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J.
CONCUR. _______________________________
JUDGE
James D. Jensen, J. _______________________________
CONCURS AND WRITES JUDGE
SEPARATELY.
State of Ohio v. Charlie S. Hines
Court of Appeals No. E-13-054
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY
May 9, 2014
[Cite as State v. Hines, 2014-Ohio-1996.]
JENSEN, J.
{¶ 15} I concur with my colleagues’ conclusion that the trial court failed to substantially comply with
{¶ 16} Under
{¶ 17} At the plea hearing, the state represented to the court that no facts existed which would warrant community notification, yet when the court sentenced Hines almost three months later, it sat quietly by while the court imposed a sentence that, by the state’s own representations, was not supported by the facts. Ideally, Hines’ own attorney would have drawn the court’s attention to the provision of the plea agreement that contemplated that the notification requirement would be dispensed with. But I believe that the state too had a duty to alert the court to the terms of the plea agreement. Accordingly, the fact that the state did not request community notification—when under the statute, community
{¶ 18} I otherwise concur with the majority opinion.
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.