STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. LEFONZA LEE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
No. 99795
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
April 3, 2014
2014-Ohio-1421
BEFORE: Stewart, J., Blackmon, P.J., and McCormack, J.
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CR-12-569019
Nancy E. Schieman
9368 Sunrise Court
Mentor, OH 44060
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy J. McGinty
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Brad S. Meyer
Assistant County Prosecutor
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street, 8th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44113
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Lefonza Lee appeals the trial court‘s acceptance of his guilty plea in connection with the robbery of a CVS drugstore. Lee argues that the trial court did not comply with Crim.R.11 by first failing to inform him that a guilty plea constitutes an admission of guilt, and secondly, that his plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently because he was pressured into pleading guilty rather than face two similar robbery cases that were going to be joined for trial purposes. However, we find the trial court acted properly. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
{¶2} In May 2012, Lee entered CVS on Shaker Square in Cleveland and attempted to steal underwear. CVS employees had noticed Lee in the store on prior occasions attempting to steal items. Lee was stopped outside of the store by one of the employees, and a scuffle between Lee and the employee ensued. The employee suffered minor injuries as a result of the scuffle.
{¶3} Lee was later arrested and indicted for robbery in violation of
{¶4} On February 6, 2013, Lee appeared before the court on the instant matter and on Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-12-568550-A, another second-degree- felony robbery case relating to events that took place in October 2012 at a different CVS. At the hearing, the
{¶5} In this appeal, Lee first argues that the trial court erred by accepting his guilty plea without first informing him that his guilty plea constituted an admission of guilt. Second, Lee argues that the trial court failed to ascertain whether his plea was entered into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. We will consider these assigned errors together.
{¶6} Before accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered the plea. Crim.R. 11(C). This court reviews whether a trial court accepted a guilty plea in compliance with Crim.R.11(C) de novo. State v. Cardwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92796, 2009-Ohio-6827.
{¶8} Lee‘s primary argument concerning his plea is that, because he suffers from long-standing mental health issues, he did not understand that pleading guilty meant he was admitting to the robbery; he states that he intended to leave the items he took from the CVS drugstore prior to exiting.
{¶9} Recently in State v. Cola, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99336, 2013-Ohio-3252, we considered a similar case where a defendant claimed not to have understood the implications of a guilty plea. The appellant argued that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 because the court did not specifically advise him that his plea was a complete admission of guilt. Id. at ¶ 6. This court noted that a defendant‘s right to be informed that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt is a nonconstitutional right and is reviewed under a standard of substantial compliance. Id., citing State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85, 2004-Ohio-4415, 814 N.E.2d 51, ¶ 12. “Under this standard, a slight
{¶10} Prior to the plea negotiations, the court noted that this matter was considered for the mental health court docket. However, the trial judge stated that he always handles cases assigned to him where the mental health of the defendant is relevant rather than transferring these types of cases to the mental health docket. The court specifically informed Lee of the consequences of pleading guilty to the amended charges, including an explanation of the minium and maximum penalties possible. Additionally, Lee‘s trial attorney stated on the record that he had “explained thoroughly [the] plea bargain to Mr. Lee and the possible penalties involved as accurately as [the court] stated them * * *.” Therefore, we find the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R.11 and that Lee subjectively understood the consequences of pleading guilty. Lee‘s first assigned error is overruled.
{¶11} In his second assignment of error, Lee argues that his plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily because he felt pressured into pleading guilty. He states that the joinder of this case with CR-12-568550-A would have given an appearance of guilt to the jury, thus making it impossible to have a fair trial. Lee‘s
{¶12} This argument is unpersuasive. Any prejudicial effect of joining the two cases was speculative at best. If Lee was found guilty at trial, he had the right to file a timely appeal on the issue of improper or prejudicial joinder. See State v. Yancy, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 96527 and 96528, 2011-Ohio-6274, ¶ 25 (defendant‘s second assignment of error stated: “The trial court erred in granting the state‘s motion for joinder because such joinder resulted in prejudice to the defendant, denying him a fair trial.“). Any perceived pressure to plead guilty does not equate to the plea not being made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
{¶13} Prior to accepting Lee‘s plea, the court engaged in a Crim.R. 11 colloquy. The court explained to Lee his constitutional rights to a trial, to confront state witnesses, and to present evidence and testimony in support of his defense. The court also asked if Lee understood his options and if he had spoken to his attorney regarding those options. Lee answered in the affirmative and indicated that he was satisfied with his attorney‘s performance. Lastly, the court asked if any threats or promises had been made to Lee in order to induce him to plead guilty: Lee answered no. After expressing that he fully understood these rights, Lee pled guilty and his attorney expressed on the record that he
{¶14} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
MELODY J. STEWART, JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and
TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR