Court Opinion

ID: 9882858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:21:05.372267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:04.507936
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Swope, 2023-Ohio-3529.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               ASHTABULA COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NO. 2023-A-0012

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                 Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                   Court of Common Pleas

BRANDON ROBERT SWOPE,
                                                 Trial Court No. 2022 CR 00604
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                            OPINION

                                    Decided: September 29, 2023
                                         Judgment: Affirmed

Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson,
OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Adam Parker, The Goldberg Law Firm, LLC, 323 West Lakeside Avenue, Suite 450,
Cleveland, OH 44113 (For Defendant-Appellant).

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Brandon Robert Swope, appeals the sentencing entry issued

following Swope’s guilty plea to one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle, a fourth-

degree felony. We affirm.

        {¶2}     In 2022, Swope was indicted on the sole count of grand theft of a motor

vehicle, in violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) and (B)(5). Swope initially pleaded not guilty

but thereafter amended his plea to guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, whereby the

parties stipulated to a sentence of 18 months of imprisonment, to be served concurrently
with sentences imposed in separate cases. The trial court accepted the plea and imposed

the stipulated sentence.

       {¶3}   Defense counsel noticed an appeal from the sentencing entry and then

moved to withdraw. The trial court granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw, and

this court appointed counsel for Swope’s appeal. Thereafter, appointed appellate counsel

submitted an Anders brief asserting he was unable to find any prejudicial errors in the trial

court proceedings. Consequently, counsel moved for leave to withdraw. This court

issued an entry on May 25, 2023, holding appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw in

abeyance and providing Swope 30 days to file his own submission, if he so chose, raising

arguments in support of his appeal. Swope has not submitted any issues for our review.

              In Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.
              493 (1967), the United States Supreme Court outlined the
              proper steps to be followed in this situation: (1) counsel should
              act in the role of active advocate for his client; (2) counsel
              should support his client to the best of his ability; (3) if counsel
              finds his client’s case to be wholly frivolous, counsel should
              advise the court and request permission to withdraw; (4) the
              request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief referring
              to anything in the record that might arguably support the
              appeal; (5) counsel should furnish the indigent client with a
              copy of counsel’s brief, and time must be allowed for the client
              to raise any points he chooses; (6) the court, not counsel,
              proceeds and decides whether the case is frivolous after full
              examination of all the proceedings. Id. at 744.

State v. Spears, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0027, 2014-Ohio-2695, ¶ 5.

       {¶4}   Here, appellate counsel has not specifically identified any potential error,

but has stated that “[g]iven this appeal involves a guilty plea and a stipulated sentence,

the only remaining issue for appeal would be compliance with Crim.R. 11. Based on the

colloquy conducted by the trial court, it appears to [appellate counsel] that Crim.R. 11 was

                                               2

Case No. 2023-A-0012
complied with, and any argument about compliance with the rule would be wholly

frivolous.”

       {¶5}     We agree. “A valid guilty plea by a counseled defendant * * * generally

waives        the   right    to     appeal     all    prior    nonjurisdictional    defects[.]”

(Citation omitted.) State v. Beasley, 152 Ohio St.3d 470, 2018-Ohio-16, 97 N.E.3d 474.

Accordingly, Swope may not challenge on appeal a non-jurisdictional issue arising prior

to entering the plea. Although Swope is not precluded from challenging the validity of his

plea and the trial court’s adherence to Crim.R. 11, such a challenge would be frivolous

based upon the record in this case for the reasons that follow.

       {¶6}     Crim.R. 11 “‘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. Dangler, 162

Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-2765, 164 N.E.3d 286, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Stone, 43 Ohio

St.2d 163, 168, 331 N.E.2d 411 (1975); see also State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 107,

564 N.E.2d 474 (1990).

       {¶7}     Crim.R. 11(C)(2) provides:

                In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty
                * * * and shall not accept a plea of guilty * * * without first
                addressing the defendant personally either in-person or by
                remote contemporaneous video in conformity with Crim.R.
                43(A) and doing all of the following:

                (a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea
                voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges
                and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that
                the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition
                of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.

                (b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the
                defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty * * *, and
                                               3

Case No. 2023-A-0012
              that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with
              judgment and sentence.

              (c) Informing the defendant and determining that the
              defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is
              waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against
              him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining
              witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and to require the state to
              prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a
              trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify
              against himself or herself.

       {¶8}   “When a criminal defendant seeks to have his conviction reversed on

appeal, the traditional rule is that he must establish that an error occurred in the trial-court

proceedings and that he was prejudiced by that error.” (Citations omitted.) Dangler at ¶

13. In the context of guilty pleas, the Ohio Supreme Court has noted two exceptions to

the rule that a defendant must establish prejudice. Id. at ¶ 14-16. First, “[w]hen a trial

court fails to explain the constitutional rights that a defendant waives by pleading guilty *

* *, we presume that the plea was entered involuntarily and unknowingly, and no showing

of prejudice is required.” (Citation omitted.) Id. at ¶ 14. Second, “a trial court’s complete

failure to comply with a portion of Crim.R. 11(C) eliminates the defendant’s burden to

show prejudice.” (Citation omitted.) Id. at ¶ 15.

       {¶9}   Here, the transcript indicates that, at the change-of-plea hearing, the trial

court personally informed Swope of certain Crim.R. 11(C)(2) advisements and also

instructed Swope to read portions of the plea agreement aloud, including the portion of

the agreement indicating the constitutional rights Swope was waiving by pleading guilty.

Intermittently, the trial court inquired if Swope had any questions regarding what he read,

if he understood what he read, and if he agreed to what he read. Swope indicated he

had no questions and affirmed his understanding of, and agreement to, the provisions he

                                               4

Case No. 2023-A-0012
read. See State v. Weir, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2017-A-0039, 2018-Ohio-2827, ¶ 14

(“The fact that appellant read portions of his written plea agreement into the record and

verified his understanding, rather than the trial court reading the rights to appellant, does

not, under the circumstances of this case, raise any presumption that appellant entered

his guilty plea unknowingly or involuntarily.”). There is no indication from the record that

Swope’s plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered, or that he suffered

any prejudice, i.e., that he would not otherwise have entered his plea if the court had

advised him differently.

       {¶10} The trial court then imposed the stipulated sentence. Pursuant to R.C.

2953.08(D)(1): “A sentence imposed upon a defendant is not subject to review under this

section if the sentence is authorized by law, has been recommended jointly by the

defendant and the prosecution in the case, and is imposed by a sentencing judge.” As

such was the case here, Swope’s sentence is not subject to review under R.C. 2953.08.

       {¶11} Accordingly, having independently reviewed the entire record, we find no

nonfrivolous issues for consideration.

       {¶12} Therefore, appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the

judgment is affirmed.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

                                             5

Case No. 2023-A-0012