State v. McQueeneyState v. McQueeney
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Paul McQueeney, Jr., appeals his conviction in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas for voluntary manslaughter. We affirm appellant’s conviction.
{¶ 2} In the late evening hours of January 8, 1995, Warren County Sheriffs deputies discovered a body оn the road in Wayne Township, Warren County. The body was later found to be that of Doug Baker. Evidence technicians determined, due to the casings found underneath the body, that Baker had been shot with a nine-millimeter firearm. Sheriffs deputies later learned from Baker’s family members that appellant was the last person seen with Baker. Sheriffs deputies also learned that appellant had been angry with Baker because he believed Baker had sexually assaulted appellant’s daughter. After discovering appellant’s Middlеtown address, Warren County deputies contacted the Middle-town Police Department and told them to detain McQueeney if possible until they arrived.
{¶ 3} Four Middletown police officers arrived at appellant’s apartment shortly before 2:00 a.m. According tо the officers, the door to the apartment was ajar, and when one officer knocked, it “swung open.” Immediately inside the door, a steep set of stairs led from the ground floor to appellant’s second floor apartment. The officers called up the stairs for appellant. Appellant’s wife answered the officers’ calls, and the officers inquired as to appellant’s whereabouts. Appellant soon appeared at the top of the stairs, and the officers, with their guns pointed at appellant, successfully ordered him downstairs. The officers then detained appellant in one of their cruisers until the arrival of the Warren County deputies.
{¶ 4} When the Warren County deputies arrived, they discussed the details of the situation with appellant’s wife. They informed her that her husband was a suspect in a homicide and asked her if she would consent to a search of the apartment. Appellant’s wife, after consulting with her father, signed a “consent to search” form, authorizing the deputies to search the apartment. During their sеarch, the deputies found a nine-millimeter firearm as well as a shoulder holster, a magazine or “clip,” and ammunition for the weapon.
{¶ 5} On January 17, 1995, appellant was indicted on one count of aggravated murder in violation of
{¶ 6} Appellant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the trial cоurt should suppress any evidence obtained during the search of his apartment. Appellant argued that the Middletown officers violated his constitutional rights by making a
{¶ 7} The trial court held a hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress. The trial court subsequently denied appellant’s motion, stating that although the Warren County deputies did not have a valid search warrant, the search of apрellant’s apartment was lawful. The court found that, considering all the surrounding circumstances, appellant’s wife “voluntarily and intelligently” gave her consent to search the apartment. The trial court did not specifically address the actions of the Middletown рolice.
{¶ 8} On May 22, 1995, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of voluntary manslaughter with a firearm specification. All other charges were dismissed. The trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea after making a finding on the record that he had entered his plea “knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.” The trial court convicted appellant and sentenced him to a prison term of 8 to 25 years for the voluntary manslaughter charge, and 3 years for the firearm specification, the sentences to be served consecutively.
{¶ 9} Appellant now appeals, raising four assignments of error.
Assignment of Error No. 1
{¶ 10} “The warrantless entry into appellant’s home was a violation of his constitutional rights, and the trial court erred in not suppressing all evidence obtained subsequent to the entry.”
Assignment of Error No. 2
{¶ 11} “The trial court erred in not making essential findings requested by appellant.”
{¶ 12} In appellant’s first and second assignments of error, he attacks the trial court’s decision denying his motion to suppress. In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the Middletown pоlice illegally entered his apartment without a warrant. Thus, appellant contends, the trial court should have suppressed any evidence obtained by police after the alleged illegal entry. In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court failed to make essential findings of fact when it resolved appellant’s motion to suppress.
{¶ 13} A plea of guilty is a complete admission of guilt.
(¶ 14} By contrast, a plea of no contest is not an admissiоn of guilt, although it does admit the truth of the facts alleged in the charge.
{¶ 15} The record shows that appellant pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter with a firearm specification in a plea entry filed May 22, 1995. Therefore, appellant waived his right to appeal all issues except jurisdictional issues and issues regarding the constitutionality of the plea itself. Thus, appellant waived his right to appeal issues regarding the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s first and second assignments of error.
Assignment of Error No. 4
{¶ 16} “Appellant’s plea was not madе knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily, and must be set aside.”
{¶ 17} Under this assignment of error, appellant argues that his plea was not the product of his voluntary choice and that he did not understand all the implications of his plea. In support of his argument, appellant has submitted аn affidavit in which he claims that it was not his intention to enter a guilty plea and that his attorney harassed him into entering such a plea.
{¶ 18} In a criminal case, a plea must be made “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.”
State v. Engle
(1996),
{¶ 19} To protect a criminal defendant’s rights,
{¶ 20} “In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and doing all of the following:
{¶ 22} “(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentеnce.
{¶ 23} “(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.”
{¶ 24} Although strict compliance with
{¶ 25} After a thorough review of the record, we find that appellant knowingly, intеlligently, and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty. The trial court directly addressed appellant, who was represented by counsel, carefully questioning him to make sure that he understood the implications of his plea and the rights he was waiving.
{¶ 26} The trial court informed appellant that he was entitled tp a jury trial. The trial court explained to appellant that he could cross-examine the state’s witnesses and could call his own witnesses, using a subpoena to compel their presence if necessary. The trial court told appellant that he could choose to testify in his defense but also could choose not to testify, a fact which the state could not use against him. Appellant was also informed that he could waive his right to a jury trial and choose a bench trial. Thе trial court repeatedly told appellant that the state would have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
{¶ 27} The trial court further informed appellant that if he pled guilty, he was admitting what he was accused of in the voluntary manslaughter charge. Thе trial court told appellant that voluntary manslaughter was a felony of the first degree and that his prison sentence would be 8 to 25 years.
{¶ 28} After informing appellant of the implications of his guilty plea and the rights he would be waiving, the trial court asked appellant if he wanted to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter. Appellant responded, “Yes, sir.” Before
{¶ 29} Finally, the trial court asked appellant’s counsel whether appellant would like to say anything further before the trial court accepted the guilty plea. Appellant proceeded to indicate for the record that the victim had raped his daughter. Appellant made no further statements.
{¶ 30} Based on the foregoing, we find that appellant’s plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Pursuant to
Assignment of Error No. 3
{¶ 31} “The trial court erred in accepting the plea of guilty on the grounds that the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was never withdrawn.”
{¶ 32} Under this assignment of error, appellant argues that because he never withdrew his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, his guilty plеa was invalid and should be set aside.
{¶ 33} “ ‘A plea of guilty by one who is competent, and has a full understanding and appreciation of the consequences of entering the plea, precludes any defense whatever to the crime.’ ”
State v. Visnick
(Sept. 15, 1993), Athens App. No. 92CA30,
{¶ 34} A valid guilty plea entered by a defendant is an “implied admission оf sanity.”
Fore
at 269,
{¶ 36} As we have already found, аppellant’s guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily and was thus valid. Nothing in the record suggests that appellant was not competent or that he did not understand or appreciate the consequences of pleading guilty. We find that by knowingly, intelligently, and vоluntarily pleading guilty to the charge, appellant waived any argument pertaining to the insanity defense. Thus, the trial court did not err in accepting appellant’s guilty plea, though appellant had not formally withdrawn his not guilty by reason of insanity plea. Appellant’s third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 37} Having overruled appellant’s four assignments of error, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.