[Cite as State v. Dehart, 2020-Ohio-3897.]

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

 MONTGOMERY COUNTY 

STATE OF OHIO 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

DAVID DEHART 

Defendant-Appellant 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

:

Appellate Case No. 28356 

Trial Court Case No. 2018-CR-4839 

(Criminal Appeal from 

Common Pleas Court) 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

O P I N I O N 

Rendered on the 31st day of July, 2020. 

. . . . . . . . . . . 

MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by SARAH E. HUTNIK, Atty. Reg. No. 0095900, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division, 

Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422

 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee 

 

CHRIS BECK, Atty. Reg. No. 0081844, 1370 North Fairfield Road, Suite C, Beavercreek, 

Ohio 45432 

 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

 

WELBAUM, J. 
-2- 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, David Dehart, appeals from his conviction in the 

Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas after he pled guilty to one count of domestic 

violence. In support of his appeal, Dehart claims that his guilty plea was not knowingly, 

intelligently, and voluntarily entered. For the reasons outlined below, the judgment of the 

trial court will be affirmed. 

Facts and Course of Proceedings 

{¶ 2} On January 4, 2019, a Montgomery County Grand Jury returned an 

indictment charging Dehart with one count of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 

2919.25(A). The indictment indicated that the charge was a third-degree felony due to 

Dehart having two prior domestic violence convictions. See R.C. 2919.25(D)(4). The 

indicted charge arose after Dehart assaulted his 75-year-old, invalid mother with whom 

he lived. 

{¶ 3} The matter was scheduled for a jury trial on March 11, 2019. On the day of 

trial, Dehart instead decided to plead guilty to the indicted charge. In exchange for 

Dehart’s guilty plea, the State agreed to stand silent as to a motion for judicial release, 

but made no agreement with regard to sentencing. 

{¶ 4} After learning that Dehart wanted to plead guilty, the trial court conducted a 

Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy. As part of the colloquy, the trial court had the State recite the 

elements of the domestic violence charge in question, i.e., that Dehart did knowingly 

cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member. R.C. 

2919.25(A). Dehart indicated that he understood the domestic violence charge and that 

a plea of guilty was an admission of guilt to that charge. At the end of the colloquy, the 
-3- 

trial court asked Dehart if he had any questions, to which Dehart responded as follows: 

Your Honor, I just – I just want to state the fact that I – I’m not one to 

hurt or I did not hurt my mother. I’m a great person. I’m a law-abiding 

citizen. I have one child. And I know she’s going to be terribly torn apart 

about this if I go to prison. I humbly, respectfully, please probation, so I 

can go home with her. I mean, I love her to death. I work very hard. I’ve 

had a full-time job since I was 14. I went back to school last year. I’m 

severely depressed. I mean, I’ve been hurt – this – everyone gets hurt. 

I’m just an emotional person. I just – I – (indiscernible) is to go home on 

probation. I love my mother. 

Trans. (Mar. 11, 2019), p. 9. 

{¶ 5} Following Dehart’s statement, the State noted its concern that Dehart had 

“cast a cloud” on his admission of guilt when he stated that he did not hurt his mother. 

Id. at 10. As a result, the State requested that the trial court have Dehart clarify on the 

record that he still agreed he committed domestic violence by causing or attempting to 

cause physical harm to his mother. The trial court saw no issue with Dehart’s statement 

and denied the State’s request for clarification. Dehart thereafter entered a guilty plea 

to the domestic violence charge, which the trial court accepted. The trial court then 

ordered a presentence investigation and scheduled the matter for sentencing. At 

sentencing, the trial court ordered Dehart to serve 36 months in prison. 

{¶ 6} Dehart appealed from his conviction, and his appellate counsel filed a brief 

under the authority of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 

(1967), asserting the absence of any non-frivolous issues for appeal. Upon conducting 
-4- 

an independent review of the record as required by Anders, this court found at least one 

non-frivolous issue for appeal concerning whether Dehart’s guilty plea was knowingly, 

intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Therefore, this court rejected Dehart’s Anders brief 

and appointed new appellate counsel to Dehart. Dehart’s new appellate counsel then 

filed an appellate brief on Dehart’s behalf raising a single assignment of error for review. 

Assignment of Error 

{¶ 7} Under his sole assignment of error, Dehart contends that his guilty plea to 

domestic violence was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because he 

denied a material element of the offense at the plea hearing and contradicted his guilty 

plea when he told the trial court that he did not hurt his mother. We disagree. 

{¶ 8} “To be constitutionally valid and comport with due process, a guilty plea must 

be entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” State v. Bateman, 2d Dist. 

Champaign No. 2010CA15, 2011-Ohio-5808, ¶ 5, citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 

89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Compliance with the procedures set forth in 

Crim.R. 11(C) ensures that a plea meets this constitutional mandate. State v. Cole, 2d 

Dist. Montgomery No. 26122, 2015-Ohio-3793, ¶ 12. Crim.R. 11(C) “ensures an 

adequate record on review by requiring the trial court to personally inform the defendant 

of his rights and the consequences of his plea and determine if the plea is understandingly 

and voluntarily made.” State v. Stone, 43 Ohio St.2d 163, 168, 331 N.E.2d 411 (1975). 

{¶ 9} In this case, Dehart does not dispute that the trial court complied with Crim.R. 

11(C) at his plea hearing. Instead, Dehart claims that the trial court should not have 

accepted his guilty plea because he contradicted his plea when he told the trial court that 
-5- 

he did not hurt his mother. Dehart’s claim lacks merit. 

{¶ 10} To be guilty of domestic violence, one must “knowingly cause or attempt to 

cause physical harm to a family or household member.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 

2919.25(A). Therefore, no actual physical harm is required; an attempt to cause physical 

harm is sufficient to constitute the offense. State v. Younker, 2d Dist. Darke No. 

02CA1581, 2002-Ohio-5376, ¶ 23. Because only an attempt to cause physical harm is 

necessary to be found guilty of domestic violence, Dehart’s statement that he did not hurt 

his mother did not contradict his guilty plea to that offense. As noted above, Dehart could 

have committed domestic violence simply by attempting to physically harm his mother. 

{¶ 11} Moreover, when reviewing Dehart’s entire statement to the trial court, it 

becomes clear that the purpose of Dehart’s statement was not to deny the domestic 

violence charge. Instead, Dehart’s statement provided the trial court with reasons to 

impose probation as opposed to a prison term. For example, after stating that he did not 

hurt this mother, Dehart went on to describe himself as a great person, a law-abiding 

citizen, a hard worker, a depressed and emotional person, and a parent whose child 

would be “torn apart” if he went to prison. Trans. (Mar. 11, 2019), p. 9. After mentioning 

all of these perceived qualities, Dehart asked to be placed on probation. Therefore, 

when considering Dehart’s entire statement, the effect of his statement was not to deny 

that he had committed domestic violence, but to request leniency at sentencing. 

{¶ 12} For the foregoing reasons, Dehart’s sole assignment of error is overruled. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 13} Having overruled Dehart’s assignment of error, the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 
-6- 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

DONOVAN, J. and FROELICH, J., concur. 

Copies sent to: 

Mathias H. Heck, Jr. 

Sarah E. Hutnik 

Chris Beck 

David Dehart 

Hon. Gregory F. Singer