STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee -vs- WILLIAM E. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Case No. 14 CA 15
COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
September 12, 2014
[Cite as State v. Smith, 2014-Ohio-4019.]
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. Hon. John W. Wise, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 09 CR 096H JUDGMENT: Affirmed
For Plaintiff-Appellee
JAMES J. MAYER, JR. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY JOHN C. NIEFT ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 38 South Park Street Mansfield, Ohio 44902
For Defendant-Appellant
WILLIAM PAUL BRINGMAN 13 East College Street Fredericktown, Ohio 43019-1192
{¶1} Appellant William E. Smith appeals from his conviction and sentence entered in the Richland County Common Pleas Court following a guilty plea.
{¶2} Appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶3} In 1992, Appellant was convicted of felonious assault and sentenced to serve five (5) to fifteen (15) years incarceration. Appellant was paroled May 1, 2008, and was ordered to report to a halfway house at Crossroads. Appellant failed to report to either his parole officer or the halfway house.
{¶4} On February 9, 2009, the Richland County Grand Jury indicted appellant, William E. Smith, on one count of escape in violation of
{¶5} On October 3, 2013, Appellant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty.
{¶6} On February 3, 2014, Appellant changed his plea to no contest, which was accepted by the trial court.
{¶7} The trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced Appellant to two years incarceration concurrent to the remainder of the sentence he was previously serving on the underlying case.
{¶8} Appellant filed an appeal, and this matter is now before this Court for consideration. The sole Assignment of Error is:
{¶9} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT DISMISSING THE INDICTMENT FOR APPELLEE‘S FAILURE TO PROVIDE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
I.
{¶10} Appellant claims the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the indictment should be dismissed because it failed to allege the state in which the events resulting in the criminal charges occurred, and further claims that the trial court should not have accepted his no contest plea. We disagree.
Indictment
{¶11}
{¶12}
{¶13} “A person is subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in this state if any of the following occur: *** The person commits an offense under the laws of this state, any element of which takes place in this state.”
{¶14} Subsection (D) states the following:
{¶15} “When an offense is committed under the laws of this state, and it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense or any element of the offense took place either in this state or in another jurisdiction or jurisdictions, but it cannot reasonably be determined in which it took place, the offense or element is conclusively presumed to have taken place in this state for purposes of this section.”
INDICTMENT FOR: ESCAPE
THE STATE OF OHIO, RICHLAND COUNTY, SS.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Of the term of January in the Year of our Lord two thousand nine.
The jurors of the grand jury of the State of Ohio, within and for the body of the County aforesaid, on their oaths, in the name and by the authority of the State of Ohio, do find and present that:
{¶17} We find this language is sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the state of Ohio, Richland County. State v. Hamilton, 5th Dist Richland No. 13CA93, 2014-Ohio-3171. As explained by the Tenth District in State v. Williams, 53 Ohio App.3d 1, *4 (10th Dist.1988):
{¶18} “However,
{¶19} “Appellees are accused of committing offenses under the laws of this state, i.e.,
No Contest Plea
{¶21} Appellant argues that at the change of plea hearing, the trial court erred in addressing him as if he were entering a plea of “guilty” rather than a plea of “no contest.”
{¶22} Pursuant to
{¶23} “(2) 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:
{¶24} ” ***
{¶25} “(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.”
{¶26} Because the rights contained in
{¶28} The trial court stated:
{¶29} “In any event, I am willing to accept a no contest plea. Bly pleading no contest you are saying I don‘t contest the allegations that are made against me, I contest their legal value, but I don‘t contest the allegations.
{¶30} ***
{¶31} “Because I believe those allegations constitute a crime of escape I‘m going to find you guilty on your no contest plea, do you understand?” (T. at 11).
{¶32} Additionally, Appellant executed a plea form which outlined the effect of a “No Contest” plea.
{¶33} Here, Appellant has not argued that he was prejudiced by the trial court‘s error. Moreover, there is no evidence of prejudice apparent on the record. Appellant, who was represented by counsel, never asserted his innocence in this matter. At the plea hearing, Appellant admitted that he wanted to change his plea to one of no contest. Therefore, under the totality of the circumstances, we find no prejudice resulting from the court‘s error.
{¶35} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Hoffman, P. J., and
Farmer, J., concur.
JWW/d 0908