Court Opinion

ID: 9882509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:10:54.099371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:06.536392
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Boyd, 2023-Ohio-2812.]

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               MARION COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                               CASE NO. 9-22-24

        v.

SHAD BOYD,                                                OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

                 Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
                           Trial Court No. 21-CR-533

                                      Judgment Affirmed

                            Date of Decision: August 14, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        April F. Campbell for Appellant

        Raymond A. Grogan, Jr. for Appellee
Case No. 9-22-24

MILLER, P.J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Shad Boyd (“Boyd”), appeals the April 22, 2022

judgment of sentence of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas. For the

reasons that follow, we affirm.

       {¶2} On December 8, 2021, the Marion County Grand Jury indicted Boyd

on two counts: Count One of possession of a deadly weapon while under detention

in violation of R.C. 2923.131(B), (C)(2)(d)(i), a fourth-degree felony, and Count

Two of aggravated possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), (C)(1)(a),

a fifth-degree felony. On December 20, 2021, Boyd appeared for arraignment and

pleaded not guilty to the counts in the indictment.

       {¶3} A change-of-plea hearing was held on March 21, 2022. At the hearing,

the trial court was informed that Boyd and the State had reached a negotiated plea

agreement. Boyd would plead guilty to Count One. In exchange, the State would

request dismissal of Count Two. There was no agreement as to sentencing. Prior

to the change-of-plea hearing, Boyd reviewed and executed a written plea

agreement. The trial court accepted Boyd’s guilty plea as to Count One and found

him guilty. At the recommendation of the State, the trial court entered a nolle

prosequi as to Count Two.

       {¶4} At the sentencing hearing held on April 21, 2022, the trial court

sentenced Boyd to 12 months in prison. The trial court furthered ordered Boyd’s

                                         -2-
Case No. 9-22-24

sentence in the instant case to be served consecutively to his sentence in Allen

County Case Number CR 2019 0303. The trial court filed its judgment entry of

sentence the following day.1

         {¶5} On April 27, 2022, Boyd filed his notice of appeal. He raises one

assignment of error for our review.

                                         Assignment of Error

         Boyd’s conviction should be reversed because the trial court could
         not accept Boyd’s guilty plea under Crim.R. 11(C), and his plea
         was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

         {¶6} In his assignment of error, Boyd argues the trial court failed to comply

with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) before it accepted his guilty plea to possession of a

deadly weapon while under detention. Specifically, Boyd contends the trial court

erred by not informing him that any prison sentence for this offense is required to

be imposed consecutively pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(2).

                                   Felony Pleas & Crim.R. 11(C)

         {¶7} “Because a no-contest or guilty plea involves a waiver of constitutional

rights, a defendant’s decision to enter a plea must be knowing, intelligent, and

voluntary.” State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 10. “If the plea

1
  In its judgment entry of sentence, the trial court did not explicitly state that the consecutive sentences were
mandatory pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(2). (Doc. No. 27). Rather, the judgment entry of sentence discusses
the consecutive-sentencing factors set forth in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). (Id.). However, at the sentencing hearing,
the trial court discussed both R.C. 2929.14(C)(2) and 2929.14(C)(4) when fashioning Boyd’s sentence. (Apr.
21, 2022 Tr. at 11-12).

                                                      -3-
Case No. 9-22-24

was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, enforcement of that plea is

unconstitutional.” Id.

       {¶8} Crim.R. 11, which outlines the procedures that trial courts must follow

when accepting pleas, “‘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.’” Id. at ¶

11, quoting State v. Stone, 43 Ohio St.2d 163, 168 (1975). Crim.R. 11(C), which

applies specifically to a trial court’s acceptance of pleas in felony cases, provides in

relevant part as follows:

       (2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or
       a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest
       without first addressing the defendant personally * * * 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 or no contest, and 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

                                          -4-
Case No. 9-22-24

       doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify
       against himself or herself.

Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)-(c).

       {¶9} “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.” Dangler at ¶ 13.

However, in the criminal-plea context, the Supreme Court of Ohio has carved out

two limited exceptions to the prejudice component of the traditional rule. Id. at ¶

14-15. First, when a trial court fails to explain the constitutional rights listed in

Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) that a defendant waives by pleading guilty or no contest, it is

presumed that the plea was entered involuntarily and unknowingly, and no showing

of prejudice is required. 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.” (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 15. “Aside from these two exceptions, the

traditional rule continues to apply: a defendant is not entitled to have his plea

vacated unless he demonstrates he was prejudiced by a failure of the trial court to

comply with the provisions of Crim.R. 11(C).” Id. at ¶ 16.

                                        Analysis

       {¶10} In determining whether to vacate a defendant’s plea due to a trial

court’s alleged noncompliance with Crim.R. 11(C), we engage in a three-step

inquiry. First, we ask whether the trial court has complied with the relevant portion

                                           -5-
Case No. 9-22-24

of Crim.R. 11(C). Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-2765, at ¶ 17. If we

determine that the trial court has not complied fully with the relevant portion of

Crim.R. 11(C), we then query whether the failure is “of a type that excuses a

defendant from the burden of demonstrating prejudice.” Id. Finally, if we find that

the failure is not one of the two types that relieves the defendant of his burden to

demonstrate prejudice, we ask whether the defendant has shown that he was

prejudiced by the trial court’s noncompliance with Crim.R. 11(C). Id. Applying,

this analysis to the facts of this case, we conclude that Boyd is not entitled to a

vacation of his guilty plea.

       {¶11} Boyd argues his conviction should be reversed because the trial court

failed to inform him that if he were sentenced to a prison term for possession of a

deadly weapon while under detention, the prison term was statutorily required to

run consecutively to the term he was serving during the commission of the offense.

Accordingly, Boyd contends the trial court did not inform him of the maximum

sentence pursuant to Crim.R.11 (C)(2)(a).

       {¶12} At the change-of-plea hearing, the trial court engaged in the following

dialogue with Boyd relating to the maximum penalty:

       [Trial Court]:    I need to make sure that you understand the
                         maximum possible consequences for entering this
                         guilty plea. I need to make sure [you] understand
                         the rights you’re giving up by pleading guilty. And
                         I need to make sure you’re doing it all voluntarily.

                                        -6-
Case No. 9-22-24

                         So, I’m going to start with that first one, the
                         maximum possible consequences. By pleading
                         guilty to this Count 1, Possession of a Deadly
                         Weapon While Under Detention, a felony of the
                         fourth degree, you’re subjecting yourself to the
                         maximum possible penalty for a felony of the fourth
                         degree being up to 18 months in prison. And up to
                         a $5,000.00 fine. You understand that?

       [Boyd]:           Yes, I do.

(Mar. 21, 2022 Tr. at 8-9).

       {¶13} The trial court also explained that if Boyd is sent to prison, upon his

release, he could be subject to post-release control. (Id. at 10). Additionally, the

trial court informed Boyd that, in lieu of prison, he could receive up to five years of

community control. (Id. at 10-11).

       {¶14} R.C. 2929.14(C)(2) provides, in pertinent part:

       [I]f an offender who is under detention at a detention facility commits
       a felony violation of section 2923.131 of the Revised Code, * * * any
       prison term imposed upon the offender for one of those violations
       shall be served by the offender consecutively to the prison term or
       term of imprisonment the offender was serving when the offender
       committed that offense and to any other prison term previously or
       subsequently imposed upon the offender.

       {¶15} Accordingly, although a prison sentence was required to be imposed

consecutively to the term of imprisonment Boyd was serving when committing the

instant offense, the trial court was not required to impose a prison sentence. See

R.C. 2929.14(C)(2).

                                         -7-
Case No. 9-22-24

         {¶16} Boyd’s argument, that the trial court must inform a defendant that a

sentence must run consecutively to any other prison term, is not a novel one and has

been considered by other Ohio appellate courts. See State v. Shade, 2d Dist.

Montgomery Nos. 29373 and 29374, 2022-Ohio-3845, ¶ 14; State v. Bailey, 9th

Dist. Summit Nos. 28003, 28004, and 28005, 2016-Ohio-4937, ¶ 17. For instance,

in State v. Norman, the Eighth District Court of Appeals held that when a statute

mandates that sentences must be served consecutively, the consecutive nature

“directly affects the length of the sentence, thus becoming a crucial component of

what constitutes the ‘maximum’ sentence.” State v. Norman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 91302, 2009-Ohio-4044, ¶ 7. However, the holdings of such cases only apply

“when the imposition of consecutive sentences is a foregone conclusion at the time

the plea is entered and accepted, that is, only in cases where ‘a mandatory,

consecutive prison term was a guaranteed consequence of appellant’s guilty plea.’”

State v. Milhoan, 6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-10-1328, L-10-1329, 2011-Ohio-4741, ¶

35, quoting Norman at ¶ 9.2

2
   In State v. Crose, this court recently applied the holding from the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in
State v. Jones, _____ Ohio St.3d ___, 2022-Ohio-4485, that a reserved prison term imposed for a community
control violation may only be imposed consecutively to another prison term, if the trial court specifically
notified the defendant of the potential for consecutive sentences when the prison term was reserved. State v.
Crose, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 19-CR-0446, 2023-Ohio-880, ¶ 19-21. Because the trial court failed to inform
Crose of this potential sentencing ramification, the trial court erred by ordering the two prison terms to be
served consecutively. Id. at ¶ 20. However, because the instant case does not concern a reserved prison term,
it is readily distinguishable from Crose.

                                                    -8-
Case No. 9-22-24

       {¶17} When Boyd entered his guilty plea, it was not a “foregone conclusion”

he would receive a prison sentence, let alone a consecutive one. See Shade, 2022-

Ohio-3845, at ¶ 16. Boyd was informed at the time he made his guilty plea that he

was eligible for community-control sanctions, “so despite the possibility of

incurring a consecutive sentence, it was not a ‘guaranteed consequence’” of Boyd’s

guilty plea. (Emphasis sic.) Id. Accordingly, we decline to adopt Boyd’s argument

and find that his guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.

Accordingly, his assignment of error is overruled.

                                    Conclusion

       {¶18} For the foregoing reasons, Boyd’s assignment of error is overruled.

Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned

and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas.

                                                                Judgment Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/jlr

                                         -9-