STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, - vs - TIMOTHY E. MOSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. CA2014-12-142
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY
8/3/2015
[Cite as State v. Mosley, 2015-Ohio-3108.]
S. POWELL, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM WARREN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. 14CR29825
Diehl & Hubbell, LLC, Martin E. Hubbell, 304 East Warren Street, Lebanon, Ohio 45036, for defendant-appellant
O P I N I O N
S. POWELL, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Timothy E. Mosley, appeals from his conviction in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to a variety of charges, including one count of aggravated murder. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On February 24, 2014, the Warren County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Mosley with aggravated murder, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated
{¶ 3} On October 17, 2014, once the trial court denied Mosley‘s motion to suppress, Mosley entered into a plea agreement. As part of his plea agreement, and as relevant here, Mosley agreed to plead guilty to aggravated murder with a jointly recommended maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole in exchange for the death penalty specification being dismissed. After accepting Mosley‘s guilty plea, which the trial court found to be knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made, the trial court sentenced Mosley to the jointly recommended maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Mosley now appeals from his conviction, raising one assignment of error for review.
{¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ACCEPTED APPELLANT‘S PLEA WITHOUT ENSURING APPELLANT UNDERSTOOD THE EFFECT OF HIS GUILTY PLEA, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT‘S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND ARTICLE 1, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶ 5} In his single assignment of error, Mosley argues the trial court erred by accepting his guilty plea to the aggravated murder charge because it was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. We disagree.
{¶ 6} “When a defendant enters a guilty plea in a criminal case, the plea must be
{¶ 7} Pursuant to
(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.
(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 sentence.
(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.
{¶ 8} A guilty plea is invalid if the trial court does not strictly comply with
{¶ 9} In this case, while it is undisputed the trial court strictly complied with the constitutional requirements of
{¶ 10} Mosley, however, has misinterpreted the otherwise straightforward nonconstitutional notification requirements of
{¶ 11} Rather, the trial court was merely required to advise Mosley that his guilty plea served as a complete admission of his guilt in accordance with
THE COURT: * * * If you enter a plea of guilty to this charge,
nobody has to prove anything to anybody. You‘re going to admit that you did it and we‘re going to get on to the matter of the sentence, is that what you want to do? DEFENDANT MOSLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
Thereafter, once the state read the facts into the record, the trial stated:
THE COURT: Mr. Mosley, did you hear that facts that form the basis of the charge against you?
DEFENDANT MOSLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you admit that those facts are true?
DEFENDANT MOSLEY: Yes, Your Honor.
{¶ 12} As noted above, “[t]he right to be informed that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt is nonconstitutional and therefore is subject to review under a standard of substantial compliance.” State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85, 2004-Ohio-4415, ¶ 12. Based on the exchanges between the trial court and Mosley, we find it clear that the trial court, at a minimum, substantially complied with the nonconstitutional notification requirements of
{¶ 13} We also find the trial court, at a minimum, substantially complied with the nonconstitutional notification requirements of
{¶ 14} Pursuant to
{¶ 15} In light of the foregoing, because it is undisputed that the trial court strictly complied with the requirements of
{¶ 16} Judgment affirmed.
PIPER, P.J., and HENDRICKSON, J., concur.