State v. SojourneyState v. Sojourney
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED: October 8, 2009
JOURNALIZED:
Susan J. Moran
55 Public Square
Suite 1616
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Scott Zarzycki
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court‘s decision. See
{¶ 1} Appellant-defendant, Alonzo Sojourney (Sojourney), appeals the decision of the lower court. Having reviewed the arguments of the parties and the pertinent law, we hereby affirm the lower court.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS
{¶ 2} On September 24, 2007, Sojourney was charged in a two-count indictment alleging one count of aggravated murder in violation of
{¶ 3} On August 20, 2008, the day set for trial, Sojourney entered into a plea agreement with the State where he pled guilty to Count 1, aggravated murder, in violation of
Assignment of Error
{¶ 4} Sojourney assigns one assignment of error on appeal:
LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶ 6} Sojourney argues that his guilty plea was invalid because the trial court failed to adequately explain the penalties involved with the offense of aggravated murder. However, contrary to Sojourney‘s claims, a review of the evidence demonstrates that the lower court acted properly.
Guilty Plea
{¶ 7} In determining whether to accept a no contest or guilty plea, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered the plea.
{¶ 8} A review of the record in the case at bar demonstrates that the trial court engaged in substantial
MR. ZARZYCKI: “It‘s my understanding, your Honor, that Mr. Sojourney will be withdrawing his formerly entered plea of not guilty and entering a guilty plea to an amended count, amended by deleting the repeat violent offender specification; deleting the notice of prior conviction specification and deleting the three-year firearm specification. That would be a plea to aggravated murder in violation of 2903.01(A) with an agreement that -- which is punishable, without an agreement, by either 20 years[-]to[-]life in prison, 25 years[-]to[-]life in prison, or possible 30 years[-]to[-]life or a possible life without parole.
“There is an agreement here by the State to the lower end, which is the 20 years[-]to[-]life. It‘s my understanding he will be pleading guilt to that count with that agreement in mind. Finally, with this plea of guilt to an amended Count 1, the State will move to nolle the having weapon under disability charge.”1
{¶ 9} After listening to the State‘s reiteration of the plea agreement, the trial court clarified on the record that Sojourney is also “subject to post-release control of five years.” The trial court went on to state that if Sojourney “were to commit an additional felony while on post-release control, he would be subject to additional incarceration of up to one-half of the original sentence.”2 Defense counsel went on to state the following:
MR. McDONNELL: “That‘s a correct recitation of the plea agreement. We‘ve advised our client of all of his constitutional rights. It‘s my professional opinion that the plea he‘s about to enter into will be a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary 3
{¶ 10} Accordingly, Sojourney‘s defense counsel spoke with their client and it was their professional opinion that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The trial court then went on to explain Sojourney‘s trial rights to him. The following exchange took place on the record:
THE COURT: “I‘m going to explain your trial rights to you, please stop me at any time if you don‘t understand anything.” You have an absolute right to go to trial. At trial, you have the right to confront the witnesses against you through your counsel. If you cannot afford an attorney, one would be appointed at no cost. Do you understand? (Emphasis added.)
THE DEFENDANT: “Yes.
THE COURT: “The burden of proof is on the State alone at trial. At trial, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of the charges by proof beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously to a jury of 12 or a judge if you waived a jury. You would have no burden of proof.
“Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: “Yes, sir.
THE COURT: “At trial, you could present a defense; call witnesses, compel their appearance at trial by subpoena; testify yourself and tell your own side of the story, or you could choose not to testify and the prosecutor could not comment upon that fact in violation of your 5th Amendment right.
“You understand that?
THE COURT: “Has anyone threatened or coerced you into taking this plea?
THE DEFENDANT: “No, sir.
THE COURT: “Do you understand that if you plead guilty today, you waive your trial and constitutional rights and obviously admit the truth of the charges to which you are pleading?
THE DEFENDANT: “Yes, sir.
* * *
THE COURT: “All right, then. How do you plead to the charge of aggravated murder, in violation of Ohio Revised code Section 2903.01(A), which states that on May 19[ ], 2007, you did purposely and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another, to wit Henry Lee Casey?
THE DEFENDANT: “Guilty.
THE COURT: “This court makes the finding that you knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made this plea and will accept it.
“Counsel, are you satisfied that the Court has complied with Criminal Rule 11?
MR. McDONNELL: “That‘s correct.
THE COURT: “Do you wish to proceed to sentencing?
MR. McDONNELL: “Yes, your Honor.”4
{¶ 11} After informing the court that defense counsel wanted to proceed to sentencing, defense counsel asked the court if it would “impose a sentence of
{¶ 12} Defendant‘s mistaken belief or impression regarding the consequences of his plea is not sufficient to establish that plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made. State v. Sabatino (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 483, 657 N.E.2d 527.
{¶ 13}
{¶ 14} In determining whether a guilty plea is voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly made, courts look to the totality of the circumstances. In re Flynn (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 778, 656 N.E.2d 737.
{¶ 16} Sojourney‘s sole assignment of error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant‘s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
LARRY A. JONES, JUDGE
KENNETH A. ROCCO, P.J., and
JAMES J. SWEENEY, J., CONCUR