STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES D. HOWLAND, Defendant-Appellant.
Case No. 17CA3
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT HIGHLAND COUNTY
RELEASED: 2/12/2018
[Cite as State v. Howland, 2018-Ohio-613.]
Harsha, J.
Steven H. Eckstein, Washington Court House, Ohio, for appellant.
Anneka Collins, Highland County Prosecuting Attorney, Hillsboro, Ohio, for appellee.
Harsha, J.
{¶1} Charles Howland pleaded guilty to aggravated possession of methamphetamine with a forfeiture specification. After accepting the plea the court convicted him, imposed a sentence, and ordered certain monies forfeited. Howland contends that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily because he was sleep deprived and under the influence of illegal drugs at the time he entered it.
{¶2} However, the trial court correctly found Howland‘s plea was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Howland expressly denied being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. And there is no evidence in the record that drugs, alcohol or sleep deprivation impaired Howland‘s judgment. We overrule Howland‘s assignment of error and affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
I. FACTS
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶4} Howland assigns the following error for our review:
HOWLAND‘S GUILTY PLEA WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
{¶5} A defendant who enters a plea in a criminal case must act knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. See State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). An appellate court that determines whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily must conduct a de novo review of the record to ensure that the trial court complied with the constitutional and procedural safeguards. See State v. Cassell, 2017-Ohio-769, 79 N.E.3d 588, ¶ 30-32 (4th Dist.); see also State v. Moore, 4th Dist. Adams No. 13CA965, 2014-Ohio-3024, ¶ 13.
B. Defendant‘s Claim of Impaired Judgment
{¶6} To decide Howard‘s claim we look to
{¶7} Substantial compliance with
{¶8} But strict compliance with
{¶9} Howland contends that he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily make his guilty plea under
{¶10} Initially the state argues that because Howland was given an agreed sentence,
{¶12} Howland cites to nothing in the record that indicates that he was under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or that he was so sleep deprived he could not understand the proceedings. The trial court asked Howland, “do you feel that you‘re making a sound judgment in going ahead now[?]” and Howland responded, “Yeah. I‘m making a sound judgment.” The trial court asked, “Are you under the influence of any types of drugs or alcohol at this time?” and Howland responded, “No, sir.” The record shows that the trial court conducted a proper
{¶13} Having overruled the assignment of error, we affirm the trial court‘s judgment.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED and that Appellant shall pay the costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Highland County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution.
IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Hoover, P.J. & Abele, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY:
William H. Harsha, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.