STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBBIE McQUIRT, Defendant-Appellant
C.A. CASE NO. 26667
T.C. NO. 15CR76
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY
March 18, 2016
2016-Ohio-1095
FROELICH, J.
(Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
Rendered on the 18th day of March, 2016.
CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
J. ALLEN WILMES, Atty. Reg. No. 0012093, 7821 N. Dixie Drive, Dayton, Ohio 45414 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
ROBBIE McQUIRT, #714768, Chillicothe Correctional Institute, P. O. Box 5500, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601 Defendant-Appellant
FROELICH, J.
{¶ 1} Robbie McQuirt pled guilty in the Montgomery County Court of Common
{¶ 2} McQuirt‘s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), indicating that he was unаble to find any potential assignments of error having arguable merit. By entry, we informed McQuirt that his attorney had filed an Anders brief on his behalf and granted him 60 days from that date to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief was filed.
{¶ 3} We have conducted our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and we agree with appellate counsel that there are no non-frivolous issues for review.
I. Factual and Procedural History
{¶ 4} In January 2015, McQuirt was indicted on two counts of domestic violence, in violation of
{¶ 5} Trial was originally scheduled for March 16, 2015. At McQuirt‘s counsel‘s request, the trial was rescheduled for March 23, 2015.
{¶ 6} During the pendency of the case, McQuirt, through counsel, filed several
{¶ 7} On March 22, the day before trial, McQuirt‘s counsel filed a supplemental demand for discovery related to jail telephone calls and motions in limine related to McQuirt‘s criminal history and statements of the complainant during recorded telephone calls with McQuirt while McQuirt was in jail.
{¶ 8} The trial court addressed most of the counsel‘s motions and the pro se motions in a conference on the morning of the first day of trial (March 23) and in subsequent written rulings. The case proceedеd to trial on the afternoon of March 23, 2015.
{¶ 9} On the morning of March 25, 2015, prior to beginning the third day of trial, the parties reached a plea agreement. The trial court conducted a plea hearing, during which McQuirt pled guilty to one count of domestic violence, with an agreed sentencing range of 12 to 24 months, with no judicial release. The second count of domestic violence was dismissed. The court ordered a presentence investigation.
{¶ 10} The trial court held a sentencing hearing on April 8, 2015. The trial court indicated that it had reviewed the presentence investigаtion report, defense counsel‘s sentencing memorandum, and letters of support from McQuirt‘s mother and from a co-worker. During statements from counsel, the State requested a 24-month sentenсe, and
{¶ 11} McQuirt appeals from his conviction.
II. Anders Review: No Non-Frivolous Issues Exist
{¶ 12} On appeal, McQuirt‘s counsel asks this court to review whеther McQuirt “waived all possible rulings, pretrial and during trial,” by entering a guilty plea in the middle of the trial. Counsel also raises the trial court‘s compliance with
{¶ 13} As an initial matter, we find that there are no non-frivolous issues related to the trial court‘s prеtrial rulings and rulings at trial. A plea of guilty is a complete admission of guilt. E.g., State v. Faulkner, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2013-CA-43, 2015-Ohio-2059, ¶ 9; State v. Wheeler, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24112, 2011-Ohio-3423, ¶ 3;
{¶ 14} In general, a defendant‘s guilty plea precludes, among other claims, that (1) defendant‘s statutory speedy trial rights were violated, Kelley at paragraph one of the
{¶ 15} Second, appellate counsel asserts that no arguably meritorious claims exist concеrning McQuirt‘s plea.
{¶ 16}
{¶ 18} Furthermore, when non-constitutional rights аre at issue, a defendant who challenges his plea on the basis that it was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made generally must show a prejudicial effect. State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 17. Prejudice in this context means that the рlea would otherwise not have been entered. Id. at ¶ 15.
{¶ 19} Upon review of the transcript of the plea hearings, the trial court fully complied with the requirements of
{¶ 20} During the plea hearing, McQuirt indicated that he was on probation in two other counties. The trial court informed McQuirt that it had no control over what would occur in the other counties; McQuirt expressed that he was willing to proceed with the plea. The trial сourt informed McQuirt of the maximum penalty for his offense and that he was eligible for community control, but that he would receive a sentence within a range
{¶ 21} McQuirt stated that he understood that his guilty plea was a complete admission of guilt. He indicated that he was not coerced to enter the plеa and that he was entering his plea voluntarily. The trial court informed McQuirt of the constitutional rights that he was waiving by his plea, and McQuirt stated that he understood that he was giving up his right to appeal pretrial rulings and was withdrawing any pending motions before the court. McQuirt further stated that he understood the charge against him, that the facts as alleged were true, and that he had discussed the elemеnts of the offense and any possible defenses with his attorney. McQuirt signed a plea form reflecting the plea agreement reached by the parties.
{¶ 22} Upon review of the record, we find no non-frivolous issues related to McQuirt‘s plea.
{¶ 23} Finally, we find no non-frivolous argument related to McQuirt‘s sentence. Absent the parties’ agreement, McQuirt faced a sentence between 9 аnd 36 months in prison. The agreed sentencing range of 12 to 24 months was authorized by law, and McQuirt received a sentence within the agreed sentencing range. McQuirt‘s presentence investigation report indicated that he had several juvenile adjudications and adult misdemeanor convictions. We cannot clearly and convincingly find that the sentence was unsupported by the record or conclude that it was an abuse of discretion.
{¶ 24} The trial court‘s judgment will be affirmed.
DONOVAN, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Carley J. Ingram
J. Allen Wilmes
Robbie McQuirt
Hon. Steven K. Dankof