STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, - vs - WESLEY T. REYNOLDS, Defendant-Appellant.
CASE NO. CA2018-02-005
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO MADISON COUNTY
12/10/2018
2018-Ohio-4942
RINGLAND, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI20170041
Beck Legal Services, Ltd., Robert J. Beck, Jr., P.O. Box 204, Marysville, Ohio 43040, for defendant-appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Wesley Reynolds, appeals his conviction and sentence in the Madison County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On December 1, 2016, appellant was indicted on three counts for his conduct involving the trafficking of drugs. On March 9, 2017, appеllant was indicted on two additional counts of felony theft.
{¶ 3} Appellant was arraigned, and the matter was set for a jury trial. On the day of trial, appellant pled guilty to the three drug trafficking counts contained in the initial indictment: (1) trafficking in drugs in the vicinity of a juvenile in violation of
{¶ 4} The trial court ordered a presentence investigation report. Appellant failed to meet with probation staff for the report. Appellant reported that the failure was due to his incarceration due to a probation violation.
{¶ 5} On January 23, 2018, the trial court sentenced appellant to 12 months incarceration on count one, 12 mоnths incarceration on count two, and 30 months incarceration on count three.1 Appellant‘s aggregate sentence was four and one-half years. Appellant now appeals, raising two assignments of error for review.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 7} THE TRIAL COURT DID ERR BY FAILING TO ADVISE THE DEFENDANT OF THE IMPACT OF A GUILTY PLEA ON DEFENDANT‘S APPELLATE RIGHTS.
{¶ 8} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary because he was not advised of the impact of a guilty plea on his appellate rights. We find no merit to appellant‘s argument.
{¶ 9} When a defendant enters a guilty plea in a criminal case, the plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. State v. Butcher, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-10-206, 2013-Ohio-3081, ¶ 8. “Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the
{¶ 10} As relevant here, pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2), the trial court may not accept a defendant‘s guilty plea without first аddressing the defendant personally and:
(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 applicablе, 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 defеndant‘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 hеrself.
{¶ 11} A guilty plea is invalid if the trial court does not strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), which requires the trial court to verify the defendant understands the constitutional rights he is waiving. State v. Shavers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-05-119, 2015-Ohio-1485, ¶ 9. However, the trial court need only substantially сomply with the nonconstitutional notifications required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b). Id. Under the substantial compliance standard, the appellate court must review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the dеfendant‘s plea and determine whether the defendant subjectively understood the effects of his plea. State v. Givens, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-02-047, 2015-Ohio-361, ¶ 12.
{¶ 12} On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred by failing to advisе him of the impact of a guilty plea on his appellate rights. Thus, appellant maintains that he was not “fully informed of the consequences of his plea, and, as such, the plea was not valid.” However, this court has previously held that the failure to inform a defendant that a guilty plea waives certain rights on appeal is not one of the specifically enumerated rights the trial court is required to discuss during the Crim.R. 11 colloquy. State v. Moxley, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2011-06-010, 2012-Ohio-2572, ¶ 13.
{¶ 13} Following review of the record, we find that appellant‘s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The record reveals that the trial court striсtly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and substantially complied with the nonconstitutional notifications required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b). Appellant affirmatively stated that he understood his rights and entered his guilty plea. As a result, we find aрpellant‘s plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently given. Furthermore, we note that appellant fails to identify any error in the proceedings that could have been remedied if properly advised of his appellate rights. This court has previously rejected claims where there is a failure to identify prejudice regarding the notification of appellate rights. See e.g., State v. Wolf, 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA2016-05-027, 2016-Ohio-8103, ¶ 10 (аffirming denial of postconviction). As a result, appellant‘s first assignment of error is not well-taken and is overruled.
{¶ 14} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 15} THE TRIAL COURT DID ERR BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE PRISON SENTENCES.
{¶ 16} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by imрosing consecutive sentences. We disagree.
{¶ 17} This court reviews felony sentences pursuant to the standard of review set forth in
{¶ 18} Pursuant to
(a) The offender committed one or more оf the multiple offenses while the offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or was under post-release cоntrol for a prior offense.
(b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender‘s conduct.
(c) The offender‘s history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the offender.
{¶ 19} “A trial court satisfies the statutory requirement of making the required findings when the record reflects that the court engaged in the required analysis and selected the apрropriate statutory criteria.” State v. Setty, 12th Dist. Clermont Nos. CA2013-06-049 and CA2013-06-050, 2014-Ohio-2340, ¶ 113. In imposing consecutive sentences, the trial court is not required to provide a word-for-word recitation of the language of the statute or articulate reasons supporting its findings. Id. Nevertheless, the record must reflect that the trial court engaged in the required sentencing analysis and made the requisite findings. Id. The court‘s findings must thereafter be incorporated into its sentencing entry. State v. Ahlers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-06-100, 2016-Ohio-2890, ¶ 10.
{¶ 20} Here, the record reflects that the trial court made the findings required by
{¶ 21} The trial court later memorialized the
{¶ 22} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and PIPER, J., concur.