State v. JacobsState v. Jacobs
Roger W. Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant.
BERGERON, Judge.
{¶1} In early 2019, defendant-appellant Robert Jacobs pleaded guilty to charges of involuntary manslaughter and attempted murder as part of a plea deal with the state. Mr. Jacobs was indicted two years earlier on various charges stemming from a shooting he perpetrated at a local shelter, leaving one person dead and another seriously wounded. As part of his plea deal, Mr. Jacobs received a 26-year prison sentence, and in exchange the state dismissed other charges, including a charge of aggravated murder. Mr. Jacobs now appeals, presenting a single assignment of error challenging the voluntariness of his pleas. He posits that the trial court‘s denial of a continuance request resulted in coercion, rendering his pleas involuntary and therefore constitutionally void. Based on our review of the record, however, we disagree and affirm his convictions.
{¶2} A defendant‘s guilty plea “is constitutionally valid only if it is entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.” State v. Foster, 2018-Ohio-4006, 121 N.E.3d 76, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). A plea without those hallmarks is constitutionally unenforceable under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution. See Engle at 527.
{¶3} Generally, when we evaluate whether a guilty plea passes constitutional muster, we consider the trial court‘s compliance with the requirements of
{¶4} But in this appeal, Mr. Jacobs does not actually challenge the trial court‘s adherence to the requirements of
{¶5} At the plea hearing, when asked if he had sufficient time to consider his decision, Mr. Jacobs responded “not really.” This prompted the trial court to offer Mr. Jacobs another day to mull things over. Seemingly uninterested in this option, Mr. Jacobs explained: “If it was up to me, I‘d start from the beginning all over again. Get a new lawyer, get everything, if it was up to me, but I got kind of bombarded. * * * I kind of got bombarded into this. So here I am about ready to do twenty-six years.” The court assured Mr. Jacobs that he could still proceed to trial, offering to halt the plea hearing immediately. But Mr. Jacobs rebuffed this overture: “Your honor, I‘m just telling you how I feel. All I‘m doing is telling you how I feel inside. * * * If it were up to me I would rather get a continuance.”
{¶7} Likewise, in State v. Harris, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-11-161, 2018-Ohio-3222, the defendant insisted that his plea was involuntary because “he wanted a continuance * * * and he felt he had no other choice but to accept the plea.” Id. at ¶ 10. Noting that “[t]he record [did] contain some hesitancy from [the defendant] regarding his decision to plead guilty,” the court ultimately concluded based on the surrounding circumstances that his sentiment that he had to accept the plea was “a mere acknowledgement that he was choosing to avoid the death penalty even if the resulting sentence was life without parole.” Id. at ¶ 14, 16. Emphasizing that the trial court offered the defendant additional time to confer with his attorneys, the record otherwise reflected that he understood his plea, and it comported with
{¶9} Defendants often face difficult, if not gut-wrenching, decisions regarding whether to accept a plea deal. The challenge of reaching that decision, however, does not automatically render it the product of coercion. Here, the trial court did everything right to ensure that Mr. Jacobs was not coerced—it offered Mr. Jacobs more time, emphasized that he could proceed to trial, and assured him that he could stop the change of plea hearing.
{¶10} We also note that, in his appellate brief, Mr. Jacobs references statements he made at the plea hearing regarding an “incident” that transpired between him and his trial counsel as contributing to the involuntariness of his pleas. At the plea hearing, when asked by the court if he was satisfied with his attorney, Mr. Jacobs responded “I want to keep the incident to myself,” but affirmed his overall satisfaction. The record reflects, however, that Mr. Jacobs never elaborated further on the “incident” leaving us only to speculate as to the nature of the alleged “incident.” Even if we wished to go down that road, our speculation would run into a brick wall in light of Mr. Jacobs‘s acknowledgment of his satisfaction with counsel. Absent some indicia that Mr. Jacobs‘s counsel threatened him, provided improper
{¶11} While we appreciate that Mr. Jacobs may have preferred another continuance to avoid entering his guilty pleas, he could not delay his day of reckoning in perpetuity. The denial of his requested continuance does not equate to coercion on the record before us. See Harris, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2017-11-161, 2018-Ohio-3222, at ¶ 15 (though defendant was unhappy that the court denied his motions, the record reflected that defendant understood “the rights he was waiving, as well as the consequences of his plea.“). Furthermore, review of the record reveals that the trial court otherwise complied with
{¶12} Based on the foregoing analysis, we accordingly overrule Mr. Jacobs‘s sole assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
MOCK, P.J., and WINKLER, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.