Court Opinion

ID: 9954673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 18:10:29.532893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:10.635153
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2024-Ohio-1133.]

                                        COURT OF APPEALS
                                    GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
                                    FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO,                               :       JUDGES:
                                             :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
        Plaintiff - Appellee                 :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
                                             :       Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vs-                                         :
                                             :
SHAWN M. SMITH                               :       Case No. 22CA000044
                                             :
        Defendant - Appellant                :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                             Appeal from the Guernsey County
                                                     Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                     22CR05

JUDGMENT:                                            Reversed and Remanded

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                    March 25, 2024

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                               For Defendant-Appellant

JASON R. FARLEY                                      MICHAEL GROH
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney                       1938 Wheeling Avenue
Guernsey County, Ohio                                Cambridge, Ohio 43725
627 Wheeling Avenue
Cambridge, Ohio 43725
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000044                                             2

Baldwin, J.

       {¶1}   The appellant, Shawn Smith, appeals his conviction and sentence after a

negotiated plea in the Guernsey County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the State

of Ohio. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

                    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND THE CASE

       {¶2}   On January 13, 2022, the appellant was indicted for Having Weapons Under

Disability in violation of R.C. §2925.13(A) and Aggravated Possession of Drugs in

violation of R.C. §2925.11(C)(1)(a).

       {¶3}   On January 27, 2022, the appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the

indictment.

       {¶4}   On July 28, 2022, the appellant entered a change of plea to guilty on the

Having Weapons Under Disability charge.

       {¶5}   On August 29, 2022, the appellant filed a Motion to Withdraw his plea.

       {¶6}   On November 3, 2022, the trial court denied the appellant’s Motion to

Withdraw.

       {¶7}   On November 15, 2022, the trial court sentenced the appellant to twenty-

four months in prison for the charge of Having Weapons Under Disability and twelve

months for a violation of post-release control.

       {¶8}   The appellant filed a notice of appeal and raised the following assignment

of error.

       {¶9}   “I. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S STATE AND FEDERAL

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND OHIO CRIM. R. 11 BY FAILING TO INFORM
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000044                                                3

APPELLANT THAT IT COULD TERMINATE HIS POST RELEASE (sic) CONTROL AND

IMPOSE ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS ON HIM.”

                                         I.

       {¶10} In the appellant’s sole assignment of error, the appellant argues his plea

was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered as the trial court did not inform

him prior to accepting his guilty plea that pursuant to R.C. §2929.141(A)(1) a sentence

for a post-release control violation must be served consecutively to the sentence imposed

for the new conviction. We agree.

                                STANDARD OF REVIEW

       {¶11} Crim.R. 11 requires guilty pleas be made knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily. Literal compliance with Crim.R. 11 is preferred; however, the trial court only

needs to “substantially comply” with the rule when addressing the non-constitutional

elements of Crim.R. 11(C). State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 475, 423 N.E.2d 115

(1981), citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977).

       {¶12} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that Crim.R. 11 requires a trial court to

inform a defendant who is on post-release control and is pleading guilty to a new felony

offense of the trial court’s authority to revoke the defendant’s post-release control and

impose a prison term consecutively to any term of imprisonment it imposes for that new

felony offense. State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156, 2018-Ohio-5132, 124 N.E.3d 766.

                                        ANALYSIS

       {¶13} In the case sub judice, the appellant argues that the trial court failed to

inform him that by pleading guilty to a felony offense, the trial court may revoke his post-

release control. The State does not dispute this, but suggests that this argument was
Guernsey County, Case No. 22CA000044                                                4

waived by the filing of a Motion to Withdraw Plea. The State provides no support or citation

to legal authority for their argument.

       {¶14} Upon review of the record, we find the trial court failed to inform the

appellant at the time he changed his plea that a consecutive prison sentence under R.C.

§2929.141(A) was possible. As such, we find the appellant’s plea was not made in a

knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner.

       {¶15} Accordingly, the appellant’s sole Assignment of Error is sustained.

                                         CONCLUSION

       {¶16} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of

Guernsey County, Ohio, is reversed, the plea is vacated, and this matter is remanded for

further proceedings consistent with the law and this opinion.

By: Baldwin, J.

Delaney, P.J. and

Gwin, J. concur.