State v. WoodsState v. Woods
OPINION
{¶ 1} Dеfendant, Melvin Woods, appeals from his conviction and sentence for domestic violence.
{¶ 2} Defendant was indicted in Case No. 05-CR-30 on one count of aggravated burglary,
{¶ 2} Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered pleas of guilty to the domestic violence charge in each case. In exchange, the State dismissed the aggravated burglary charge. The parties also agreed that the sentences would run consecutively. The trial court sentenced Defendant to consecutive eighteen month prison terms and ordered restitution in each case.
{¶ 3} Defendant has timely appealed to this court from his сonviction and sentence.
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 4} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED THE DEFENDANT‘S PREJUDICE BY FAILING TO ADDRESS DEFENDANT IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY CRIMINAL RULE 11.”
{¶ 5} Defendant argues that the trial court did not comply with
{¶ 6} A trial court need only substаntially comply with the nonconstitutional provisions in Crim.R. 11(C)2). State v. Nero (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108. Substantial compliance means that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving. Id. A defendant must also demonstrate thаt he was prejudiced by a trial court‘s failure to adhere to
{¶ 7} The record of the plea hearing supports a conclusion that Defendant understood that a presentence investigation report would be prepared before the court imposed sentence, and that after that report was presented the trial court would sentence Defendant to a term of imprisonment on each charge to which the parties had agreed, as part of the plea bargain, would run consecutively, and could total a maximum of thirty-six months. Given that, plus the fact that the trial court did not immediately proceed with judgment and sentence upon accepting Defendant‘s pleas, but rather ordered a presentenсe investigation and sentenced Defendant fourteen days later, Defendant has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the trial court‘s failure to literally adhere to
{¶ 8} The first assignment of error is overruled.
SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 9} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO DEFENDANT‘S PREJUDICE BY IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.”
{¶ 10} Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it imposed conseсutive sentences, absent the finding required by
{¶ 11} The State responds that the court satisfied
{¶ 12} We agree that the court‘s stated finding substantially complies with
{¶ 13} Foster held that
{¶ 14} The error which Defendant-Appellant Woods assigns, that his consecutive sentences were improperly imposed because the court failed to make thе findings that
{¶ 15} The court made findings to support the consecutive sentences it imposed. That its findings were insufficient to satisfy
{¶ 16} The second assignment of error is overruled.
THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 17} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO DEFENDANT‘S PREJUDICE BY FAILING TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION AS REQUIRED BY REVISED CODE 2929.14(K).
{¶ 18} Defendant argues that the trial court failed to comply with
{¶ 19}
{¶ 20} Defendant was not deprived of any determination to which he was entitled under the statute regarding his eligibility for shock incarceration because, even though the trial court made no recommendation, Defendant will be screened for eligibility by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction after he arrives at the prison. State v. Dixon (Dec. 28, 2001), Clark App. No. 01CA17, 2001-Ohio-7075; Manns, supra.
{¶ 21} The third assignment of error is overruled.
FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 22} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO DEFENDANT‘S PREJUDICE BY FAILING TO MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED BY REVISED CODE § 2929.19(B)(2)(a).”
{¶ 23} Defendant argues that the trial court failed to comply with
{¶ 24}
{¶ 25} We have held that, being agreed, the consecutive sentence the court imposed and any error it involved is beyond our jurisdiction to review. With respect to the two other matters of which Defendant cоmplains, the record indicates that the court stated its reason for imposing a prison term. (T. 9). However, the court did not state its reason for imposing maximum sentences. Because those matters implicate the holding ofFoster, we necessarily will revеrse and vacate the sentences imposed and remand the case for resentencing.
{¶ 26} The fourth assignment of error is sustained.
FIFTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 27} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO DEFENDANT‘S PREJUDICE BY FAILING TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS MANDATED BY REVISED CODE § 2929.19(B)(3)”
{¶ 28} Defendant argues that the trial court failed to comply with
{¶ 29} With respect to the requirements which
{¶ 30} The fifth assignment of error is overruled.
SIXTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 31} “THE COURT ERRED TO DEFENDANT‘S PREJUDICE BY FAILING TO PROPERLY CONSIDER DEFENDANT‘S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.”
{¶ 32} Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. Specifically, Defendant complаins that the trial court did not give full and fair consideration to his plea withdrawal request because the court did not hold a hearing on that matter.
{¶ 33} In State v. Andriacco (Oct. 21, 2005), Miami App. No. 05CA3, 2005-Ohio-5572, this court observed:
{¶ 34} “A defendant‘s motion to withdraw a guilty plea, made before sentencing, should be freely and liberally granted, рrovided the movant demonstrates a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal. State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521. The decision whether to grant or deny a presentence request to withdraw a guilty plea is a matter resting within the trial court‘s sound discretion. Id. Such decisions will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion; that is, acted in an unreasonable, arbitrary, unconscionable manner. Id. No abuse of discretion is demonstrated where: (1) the accused is represented by highly competent counsel, (2) the accused was afforded a full hearing, pursuant to Crim.R. 11, before entering the plea, (3) after the motion to withdraw is filed the accused is given a complete and impartial hearing on the motion, and (4) the record reveals that the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the plea withdrawal request. State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211.” (Opinion at p. 4).
{¶ 35} Shortly before being sentenced, Defendant asked to withdraw his guilty pleas. As his reason for wanting to withdraw his pleas, Defendant told the trial court that it was his understanding that in order to be guilty of domestic violence the offender had to be living together with the victim as a spouse, and he never lived with the victim. When the trial court asked Defendant what his relationship with the victim was, Defendant candidly admitted that the victim was the mother оf his daughter. The trial court then explained to Defendant that this joint parental relationship with the victim qualifies the offense as domestic violence. See:
{¶ 36} Having entered pleas of guilty, Defendant is precluded from claiming on appellаte review that the State‘s evidence was insufficient to convict him. State v. Buhrman (Sept. 12, 1997), Greene App. No. 96CA145. A plea of guilty is a complete admission of Defendant‘s guilt.
{¶ 37} Defendant‘s sole reason for wanting to withdraw his guilty рleas was his misunderstanding regarding the nature of the relationship between Defendant and the victim that is required to constitute the offense of domestic violence. When Defendant admitted that the victim is the mother of his child, the trial court correctly рointed out that Defendant‘s claim lacked any legal basis because his relationship with the victim made the offense domestic violence. See:
{¶ 38} The sixth assignment of error is overruled. Having sustained Defendant‘s fourth assignment of error, Defendant‘s sentence will be reversed and vacated, and the case will be remanded to the trial court for resentencing. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.