Court Opinion

ID: 9363358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 22:07:11.60471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:31.482035
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Dabney, 2023-Ohio-28.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     WOOD COUNTY

State of Ohio                                     Court of Appeals No. WD-22-019

        Appellee                                  Trial Court No. 2021CR0443

v.

Shantyanna Dabney                                 DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                 Decided: January 6, 2023

                                             *****

        Paul A. Dobson, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and
        David T. Harold, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Jeffrey P. Nunnari, for appellant.

                                             *****

        OSOWIK, J.

        {¶ 1} This is an appeal from a March 2, 2022 judgment of the Wood County Court

of Common Pleas, sentencing appellant to a 30-month term of incarceration, with the

possibility of early release after six months, following appellant’s plea to one count of
failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, in violation of R.C.

2921.331(B), as enhanced to a felony of the third degree pursuant to R.C.

2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii), based upon the trial court’s finding that that the offense “caused a

substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property”.

         {¶ 2} Appellant, Shantyanna Dabney, sets forth the following sole assignment of

error:

                “Appellant’s sentence is contrary to law.”

         {¶ 3} We note at the outset that this appeal is procedural in nature. It is not

alleged, nor does the record reflect, that the underlying sentence was unlawful on any

substantive basis. Rather, appellant asserts that the sentence should be construed as

unlawful based upon the procedural claim that a voluntary plea entered to an enhanced,

felony-level failure to comply offense of R.C. 2921.331(B) and (C)(5)(a)(ii), by

definition, cannot demonstrate “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” of the “creating a

substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property” enhancement element in

the absence of a trial.

         {¶ 4} Appellant argues on appeal that, “Since Dabney had no trial, as she entered a

guilty plea, she could be found guilty of only a misdemeanor of the first degree.”

         {¶ 5} The following undisputed facts are relevant to this appeal. On the afternoon

of August 25, 2021, a trooper on patrol with the Ohio State Highway Patrol observed a

2.
vehicle traveling southbound on I-75 in Wood County at a rate of speed of approximately

84 m.p.h. in a 70 m.p.h. zone. Appellant was a passenger in the vehicle.

          {¶ 6} The trooper initiated a traffic stop due to the speeding infraction. During the

course of the traffic stop, the driver of the vehicle was placed in the back of the trooper’s

vehicle following the discovery of bags of marijuana in the vehicle’s glove compartment.

The trooper requested additional officers be dispatched to the scene to assist in the

investigation.

          {¶ 7} Following the arrival of the additional officers at the scene, the trooper

requested that they carefully observe appellant, the passenger who had remained inside

the stopped vehicle, as the trooper had observed appellant erratically moving about inside

the vehicle.

          {¶ 8} Shortly thereafter, appellant jumped into the driver’s seat of the vehicle and

sped away from the scene fleeing at a high rate of speed. This culminated in a 16-mile,

high speed chase which covered broad territory, encompassing freeways, state routes, and

local roads. The officers subsequently discovered that appellant was on felony parole in

the state of Michigan and had unlawfully left Michigan in violation of the terms of her

parole.

          {¶ 9} During the course of the pursuit, appellant drove at speeds exceeding 100

m.p.h., ran through multiple stop signs and traffic lights, and nearly struck multiple

3.
vehicles travelling on the affected roadways, which included State Rt. 25, Sand Ridge

Rd., State Rt. 6, and I-75.

       {¶ 10} Stop sticks were deployed by law enforcement and blew out one of the

front tires on the vehicle. Appellant persisted in fleeing, now driving with a blown out

tire. Upon re-entering I-75, traveling at approximately 100 m.p.h. with a flattened front

tire, appellant lost control of the vehicle and crashed into a guardrail. Upon crashing,

appellant jumped from the vehicle and fled into a nearby ditch on foot. One of the

pursuing troopers commenced a foot pursuit and captured appellant shortly thereafter.

       {¶ 11} On October 7, 2021, appellant was indicted on one count of failure to

comply with an order or signal of a police officer, in violation of R.C. 2921.331(B), as

enhanced to a felony of the third degree pursuant to R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii) based

upon appellant’s conduct “creating a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons

or property”, the statutory enhancement language which elevates the offense from a

misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree. On October 13, 2021,

appellant was arraigned and counsel was appointed.

       {¶ 12} On January 18, 2022, by and through appointed counsel, appellant

voluntarily entered a guilty plea to the offense and executed the corresponding written

plea documentation memorializing the agreement.

       {¶ 13} The transcripts of proceedings reflect that during the change of plea

colloquy, the trial court conveyed to appellant, “In a moment I will have the State of Ohio

4.
present the facts that underlie the offense for which you are pleading guilty. By pleading

guilty you are saying those are the true facts. Do you understand?” Appellant replied,

“Yes.” (Emphasis added).

       {¶ 14} In conjunction, the trial court thoroughly inquired of appellant during the

change of pea colloquy, repeatedly verifying her understanding of the ramifications of the

plea and the corresponding plea documents, while she executed same, to which appellant

consistently and unambiguously affirmed her understanding.

       {¶ 15} At this juncture, the trial court instructed appellee to recite the statement of

facts comprising appellant’s offense, regarding which appellant had just acknowledged

would reflect her admission to the truth of those facts.

       {¶ 16} Appellee conveyed, “On August 25, 2021, at approximately 3:30 p.m., the

Highway Patrol pulled over a vehicle on I-75 southbound * * * going 84 miles an hour in

a 70 mile an hour zone * * * [the dash cam] video shows appellant sitting in the

passenger seat. She gets somewhat agitated. Eventually she moves into the driver’s seat

and she takes off.”

       Appellee next elaborated,

       Officers tried to get her to stop * * * she continued heading down I-75 at a

       high rate of speed * * * they were able to actually drop stop sticks and

       actually deflated one of the tires of the vehicle. She continued and then

       got back on the interstate southbound going at an extremely high rate of

5.
       speed, sometimes in excess of 100 mph, weaving in and out of traffic, and

       thus creating a substantial risk of serious physical harm not only to

       persons including herself but the property of the other drivers on the road.

       She eventually then got off at State Route 25. She then ran the stop sign

       and got onto the entrance ramp going southbound * * * [S]he lost control

       of the vehicle and crashed into the guardrail. She exited the vehicle,

       jumped the guardrail, attempted to flee, but was caught after a foot chase.

       (Emphasis added).

       {¶ 17} Following appellee’s recitation of the facts underlying appellant’s offense

onto the record during the change of plea hearing, both substantively reflecting and

specifically stating the actions “caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to

persons or property”, the trial court inquired of appellant, “Ms. Dabney, are those the

facts you are entering a plea of guilty to?” Appellant replied, “Yes.” (Emphasis added).

       {¶ 18} A presentence investigation was ordered and the matter was scheduled for

sentencing. On March 1, 2022, the sentencing hearing was conducted. At sentencing, it

was noted that appellant possesses an extensive criminal history, including six prior

felony convictions. In addition, it was noted that appellant was on felony parole in the

state of Michigan, and she was aware and concerned about being unlawfully outside of

the state of Michigan at the time of these events.

       Appellee conveyed to the trial court at sentencing,

6.
       I believe that her driving and the length of the chase that occurred does

       qualify and it created a substantial risk of serious physical harm either to

       persons or property * * * they deployed stop sticks * * * they disabled one

       of the tires on the vehicle * * * she got back on I-75 and drove recklessly

       and almost caused accidents that could have caused serious physical harm

       to persons or property * * * she then got off at the Cygnet Road exit and

       she then ran because she couldn’t control the car anymore. She ran into a

       railing, disabling the vehicle. That didn’t stop her either. She was going to

       continue to run and she fled on foot. She was captured after a foot pursuit

       * * * she was trying to flee so she wouldn’t get in trouble.

       {¶ 19} Following appellee’s recitation of the facts onto the record again during the

sentencing hearing, the trial court conveyed,

       There are some findings I need to make pursuant to R.C. 2921.331(B) and

       (C)(5)(a)(ii) of the statute. In particular the duration of the pursuit in this

       matter. These are considerations the court needs to make in determining

       sentencing. It was about 17 minutes. The distance was about 16 miles.

       The rate of speed of which the motor vehicle was operated exceeded 100

       m.p.h. There was a failure to stop for traffic lights and stop signs * * *

       moving violations. Yes. There were several of them * * * Almost crashed

7.
       into several vehicles as you turned from I-75 to Route 6. In addition,

       traveling over 100 m.p.h. without a front tire at the time.

       {¶ 20} Appellant was then sentenced to a 30-month term of incarceration, with the

possibility of early release after six months. This appeal ensued.

       {¶ 21} In the sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court sentence

was contrary to law.

       {¶ 22} Specifically, appellant argues, “[A] violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) is a

misdemeanor of the first degree unless certain statutory criteria are proven beyond a

reasonable doubt * * *. Since [appellant] had no trial, as she entered a guilty plea, she

could be found guilty of only a misdemeanor of the first degree by operation of the plain

wording of the statute.” We do not concur.

       {¶ 23} As held by this court in State v. Johnson, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-20-037,

2021-Ohio-3380, ¶ 39, “R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) governs appellate felony sentence review *

* * [It] establishes that an appellate court may increase, reduce, modify, or vacate and

remand a disputed sentence if it clearly and convincingly finds either that the record does

not support the sentencing court’s [relevant statutory] findings [or] that the sentence is

otherwise contrary to law.”

       {¶ 24} As applied to this case, the sole basis of appellant’s appeal alleging that the

sentence was unlawful is that appellant voluntarily entered a plea, negating the need for a

trial, and, therefore, according to appellant’s rationale, it was not possible to establish

8.
beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant’s conduct “caused a substantial risk of serious

physical harm to persons or property,” so as to properly enhance the offense from a

misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree. We are not persuaded.

       {¶ 25} It is well-settled law that a guilty plea acts as a complete admission of

factual guilt. State v. Brimacomble, 195 Ohio App.3d 524, 2011-Ohio-5032, 960 N.E.2d

1042, ¶ 16 (6th Dist.), citing Crim.R. 11.1(B)(1); State v. Barnett, 73 Ohio App.3d 244,

248, 596 N.E.2d 1101 (2d Dist., 1991). “As a complete admission of guilt, it embraced

not only the discreet acts alleged, but the totality of the substantive conduct involved in

committing the crime.” Id. Therefore, the guilty plea subsumes any right related to the

state’s ability to prove factual guilt. State v. Luna, 6th Dist. Huron No. H-18-017, 2020-

Ohio-3211, ¶ 7, citing State v. Morgan, 181 Ohio App.3d 747, 2009-Ohio-1370, 910

N.E.2d 1075, ¶ 23 (1st. Dist.).

       {¶ 26} As held in State v. Scott, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106090, 2018-Ohio-1849,

¶ 10-11, in rejecting an analogous argument upon appeal, the court held,

       [W]hile R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a) generally requires the trier of fact to make

       specific findings, a defendant’s guilty plea to the charges demonstrates an

       admission sufficient to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a) *

       * * Guilty pleas constitute a complete admission of factual and substantive

       guilt. Here, through his guilty plea, [appellant] admitted the findings

       required by R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a) * * * including a statement that ‘the

9.
       operation of the motor vehicle by [appellant] caused a substantial risk of

       serious physical harm to persons or property.’ (Emphasis added).

       {¶ 27} Consistently, as held in State v. Carter, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2019-L-017,

2019-Ohio-3443, ¶ 48, in rejecting an analogous argument upon appeal, “[Appellant]

cannot now complain it is error to sentence him for a specification [that] he affirmatively

consented to when he pleaded guilty.”

       {¶ 28} As applied to the instant case, the record reflects that appellant likewise

entered a plea and an admission, as reflected in the above-quoted portions of the

transcripts, to the subject offense and to facts “causing a substantial risk of serious

physical harm to persons or property”, including factual statements of the conduct

containing the precise specification language.

       {¶ 29} The record reflects, as quoted-above, that the trial court made a separate,

uncontested R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii) finding that appellant’s actions “caused a

substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property.” We have previously

found sufficient facts in similar circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Owens, 6th Dist. Lucas

No. L-21-1148, 2022-Ohio-2908, ¶ 30 (conduct created substantial risk of physical harm

to persons or property where defendant drives at a high rate of speed through

neighborhoods, running stop signs to elude police pursuit).

10.
       {¶ 30} We find that the record clearly reflects that the statutory enhancement

requirement set forth in R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii) was shown beyond a reasonable doubt

in this case regardless of the resolution of the case through a voluntary plea agreement.

       {¶ 31} Based upon the foregoing, we find that appellant’s assignment of error is

without merit. Wherefore, the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas is

hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R.

24.

                                                                        Judgment affirmed.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                           ____________________________
                                                       JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
                                               ____________________________
Myron C. Duhart, P.J.                                  JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                               ____________________________
                                                       JUDGE

       This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
  Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
       version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

11.