[Cite as State v. Soverns, 2014-Ohio-4094.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 101185

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs. 

CURTIS D. SOVERNS

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-06-482687-A 

BEFORE: McCormack, J., Keough, P.J., and Kilbane, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 18, 2014 
FOR APPELLANT

Curtis D. Soverns, pro se 

Inmate No. 514-355 

Lorain Correctional Institution 

2075 S. Avon-Belden Rd. 

Grafton, OH 44044 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Joseph J. Ricotta 

Assistant County Prosecutor 

8th Floor, Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, OH 44113 
TIM McCORMACK, J.: 

{¶1} Curtis D. Soverns was sentenced to 65 years in prison in 2006 after 

pleading guilty to rape and several other offenses. He did not file a direct appeal. Six 

years later, he filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and the trial court denied it. For 

the following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

{¶2} In 2006, Soverns pled guilty to rape, kidnapping with sexual motivation, 

and aggravated robbery in connection with an incident where he abducted a young 

woman from Crocker Park in Westlake, drove her around, and repeatedly raped her. He 

received a 65-year prison term for his offenses. 

{¶3} Soverns did not file a direct appeal. He filed a delayed appeal, pro se, in 

2007, and again in 2009. This court denied it on both occasions. In 2013, he filed a 

motion, again pro se, to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied it. Soverns 

now appeals from that decision. He raises two assignments of error: 

I. The trial court erred when it failed to inform the pleading defendant of 

his Constitutional Rights: In violation of Ohio Crim. Rules of procedure, 

Rule 11(c)[,] as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses under 

the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

II. Appellant’s guilty plea was not voluntarily, knowingly or intelligently 

entered where the Trial Court failed to inform the Defendant of the 

maximum penalty involved: i.e. the sanction time for violation(s) of post 

release control. 

{¶4} Unlike a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea, which is to be 

liberally granted, State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575, 2009-Ohio-1577, 906 N.E.2d 422, 

¶ 1, a motion to withdraw a plea after a sentence is imposed must establish the existence 
of “manifest injustice.” State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), 

paragraph one of the syllabus. In either case, such a motion is “addressed to the sound 

discretion of the trial court, and the good faith, credibility and weight of the movant’s 

assertions in support of the motion are matters to be resolved by that court.” Smith at 

paragraph two of the syllabus. 

{¶5} Soverns argues that at the 2006 plea hearing, the trial court did not inform 

him that by pleading guilty he would be waiving his constitutional right to confront his 

accuser. He also argues the trial court did not explain the consequence of a violation of 

the terms of his postrelease control. 

{¶6} Soverns did not provide a transcript of the plea hearing to support his 

claims. We note that an appellant bears the burden of providing the reviewing court 

with a transcript of the proceedings to demonstrate any claimed errors. State v. Blashaw, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98719, 2012-Ohio-6011, ¶ 12. “‘When portions of the transcript 

necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing 

court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no 

choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.’” State v. 

Simmons, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100638, 2014-Ohio-3038, ¶ 14, quoting Knapp v. 

Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980). 

{¶7} In this case, the trial court’s journal entry regarding Soverns’s guilty plea 

stated that the defendant was fully advised in open court of his constitutional rights and 

penalties. Without the benefit of a transcript of the plea colloquy, we are unable to 
assess whether the trial court failed to fully advise Soverns and created a “manifest 

injustice”; instead, we have no choice but to presume regularity in the plea proceeding. 

Blashaw at ¶ 13. See also State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94063, 

2010-Ohio-3512; State v. Whitaker, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 10CA3349, 2011-Ohio-6923, ¶ 

10 (appellant could not show that his guilty plea was unknowing when he failed to 

provide a copy of the plea hearing for appellate review). 

{¶8} Finding no abuse by the trial court in denying Sovern’s motion to withdraw 

his guilty plea, we affirm its judgment. 

{¶9} 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. Case remanded to the trial court for 

execution of sentence. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

______________________________________________ 

TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and 

MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR