State v. RobinsonState v. Robinson
* * * * *
Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and Mary Ann Barylski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Laura A. Perkovic, for appellant.
* * * * *
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Brandon Robinson, appeals his conviction by the Erie County Court of Common Pleas of the offense of failure to register, a violation of
{¶ 2} Appellant‘s original counsel filed an appellate brief, but sought leave to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California (1967), 386 U.S. 738. We conducted a review of the record, as mandated in Anders, and concluded that there is an arguable assignment of error in this appeal concerning whether there was a valid waiver, under the procedures set forth in
{¶ 3} With the assistance of new counsel, appellant now assigns three errors on appeal:
{¶ 4} “Assignments of Error
{¶ 5} “I. Absence of the mens rea element in the indictment for failure to register violates appellant‘s right to indictment by grand jury under the Ohio Constitution and violates appellant‘s due process rights under the Ohio and United States Constitutions.
{¶ 6} “II. The appellant‘s plea of guilty was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made.
Claimed Mens Rea Defect in the Indictment
{¶ 8} Under Assignment of Error No. I, appellant argues that the indictment for failure to register, a violation of
{¶ 9} The Supreme Court of Ohio has identified
{¶ 10}
{¶ 12} The court also concluded that such an analysis was supported by the General Assembly‘s intent behind enactment of registration requirements for sexual offenders as considered by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Williams (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 513, 518.
{¶ 13} The Eighth District Court of Appeals held in Beasley that the offense of failure to register, in violation of
{¶ 14} The Ninth District Court of Appeals in State v. Hardy, 9th Dist. No. 21015, 2002-Ohio-6457, ¶ 18, followed Beasley in considering another registration requirement in Chapter
{¶ 15} The defendant in Hardy was a sexually oriented offender. The version of
{¶ 16} The same version of
{¶ 17} We conclude that use of the wording in
Waiver of Constitutional Right to Compulsory Process and Guilty Plea
{¶ 18} Under Assignment of Error No. II, appellant argues that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made due to the failure of the trial court
{¶ 19} In the decision of State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, the Ohio Supreme Court recently revisited the requirement of strict compliance with
{¶ 20} “A trial court must strictly comply with
{¶ 21} Pursuant to Veney, a guilty plea is invalid where the trial court failed to inform the defendant in a plea colloquy that he would be waiving constitutional rights specified in
{¶ 22} We considered the nature of the trial court‘s plea colloquy prior to accepting appellant‘s guilty plea in Robinson I. The trial court questioned appellant about different constitutional rights including “(1) a right to trial by jury; (2) the right to cross-examine witnesses that would testify against him; (3) the right to have the state of Ohio prove appellant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (4) the right to choose not to testify at trial; (5) the right to bear firearms; and (6) the right, for all practical purposes, to appeal.” Robinson I at ¶ 23. The trial court did not discuss the constitutional right to compulsory process to compel attendance witnesses at trial, either to explain the nature of the right or to determine that appellant understood that he waived the right by pleading guilty. Accordingly, the trial court failed to strictly comply with the requirements of
{¶ 23} Under Assignment of Error No. III, appellant argues that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel due to the claimed failure of counsel to assure compliance with
{¶ 24} For the reasons stated, we vacate appellant‘s guilty plea and reverse the trial court‘s judgment. We remand this matter to the Erie County Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings consistent with this decision and judgment. Appellee is ordered to pay costs pursuant to
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Peter M. Handwork, J.
JUDGE
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
CONCUR.
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.