Court Opinion

ID: 9905183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:10:01.90067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:11.890167
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Dumas, 2023-Ohio-4298.]

                                       COURT OF APPEALS
                                    MORROW COUNTY, OHIO
                                   FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO                               :       JUDGES:
                                            :       Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
        Plaintiff-Appellee                  :       Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                            :       Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
-vs-                                        :
                                            :
JOHNNY DUMAS                                :       Case No. 2023 CA 0002
                                            :
        Defendant-Appellant                 :       OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Court of Common
                                                    Pleas, Case No. 2021 CR 0088

JUDGMENT:                                           Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT:                                   November 27, 2023

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee                              For Defendant-Appellant

THOMAS SMITH                                        R. JESSICA MANUNGO
60 East High Street                                 250 East Broad Street
Mt. Gilead, OH 43338                                Suite 1400
                                                    Columbus, OH 43215
Morrow County, Case No. 2023 CA 0002                                                        2

King, J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Johnny Dumas appeals the October 27, 2022

judgment of the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-Appellee is the state of

Ohio.

        {¶ 2} A full recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary for our resolution of

this appeal. On June 19, 2021, Dumas stole a vehicle, attempted to elude police, and

injured two officers in the process. As a result, on June 24, 2021 the Morrow County

Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Dumas with two counts of failure to comply

with the order or signal of a police officer, and one count each of receiving stolen property,

felonious assault, and vandalism. Dumas entered pleas of not guilty.

        {¶ 3} On November 9, 2021, counsel for Dumas filed a motion for an order

directing Dumas to submit to an evaluation to determine his competency to stand trial as

well as his mental condition at the time of the offense. On December 7, 2021, the trial

court ordered Dumas to submit himself to said evaluations at The Forensic Diagnostic

Center in Mansfield, Ohio.

        {¶ 4} On March 18, 2022, a competency hearing was held. Reports from The

Forensic Diagnostic Center concluded Dumas was competent at the time he committed

his offenses and was further competent to stand trial. The parties stipulated to the reports.

The trial court ordered Dumas to submit to an evaluation with Riverside Recovery for

possible placement into that facility. Motion Hearing, March 18, 2022 3-6. Dumas was

later found to be a suitable candidate for Riverside. Motion Hearing, April 4, 2022, 5.

        {¶ 5} On May 13, 2022, the Morrow County Grand Jury returned a superseding

indictment. The superseding indictment charged Dumas as he had been previously
Morrow County, Case No. 2023 CA 0002                                                           3

charged, with the addition of three more crimes including one count of possession of

cocaine and two counts of operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs. Dumas again

entered pleas of not guilty.

       {¶ 6} Pursuant to plea negotiations with the state, On August 1, 2022, Dumas

entered pleas of guilty to two counts of felonious assault, felonies of the first degree, as

contained in counts four and five of the superseding indictment. In exchange for his pleas,

the state dismissed the balance of the superseding indictment. Before entering his pleas,

Dumas viewed a pre-recorded video presentation explaining his rights as a criminal

defendant. He signed a document stating he viewed the video, but the document does

not explain what exactly was contained in the video, nor does it indicate Dumas

understood the contents of the video. The trial court then engaged Dumas in a lengthy

plea colloquy before accepting his guilty pleas. Dumas was subsequently sentenced to

an aggregate prison term of twenty to twenty-five years.

       {¶ 7} Dumas was granted leave to file a delayed appeal and the matter is now

before this court for consideration. He raises one assignment of error as follows:

                                                I

       {¶ 8} "MR. DUMAS WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW BECAUSE HE

COULD NOT HAVE ENTERED HIS GUILTY PLEAS KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY,

AND VOLUNTARILY. FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, UNITED STATES

CONSTITUTION; ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10, OHIO CONSTITUTION; CRIM.R. 11(C)(2)."

       {¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, Dumas argues that in accepting his guilty

plea, the trial court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). Specifically, Dumas

argues that in its colloquy, the trial court failed to inform him that by entering a guilty plea,
Morrow County, Case No. 2023 CA 0002                                                   4

he waived his right to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We

disagree.

      {¶ 10} When reviewing a trial court's compliance with Crim.R. 11(C), we apply a

de novo standard of review. State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109, 564 N.E.2d

474(1990); State v. Lebron, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108825, 2020-Ohio-1507, ¶9; State

v. Groves, 5th Dist. Fairfield Nos. 2019 CA 00032, 2019 CA 00033, 2019-Ohio-5025, ¶

7. We are required to review the totality of the circumstances and determine whether the

plea hearing complied with Crim.R. 11(C). State v. Cardwell, Cuyahoga App. No. 92796,

2009-Ohio-6827, ¶ 26, citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977).

      {¶ 11} In State v. Veney, the Ohio Supreme Court held strict compliance with

Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) is required when addressing constitutional notifications:

             A trial court must strictly comply with Crim.R . 11(C)(2)(c) and orally

             advise a defendant before accepting a felony plea that the plea

             waives (1) the right to a jury trial, (2) the right to confront one's

             accusers, (3) the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses, (4)

             the right to require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable

             doubt, and (5) the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.

             When a trial court fails to strictly comply with this duty, the

             defendant's plea is invalid.

      {¶ 12} Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, paragraph

one of the syllabus.
Morrow County, Case No. 2023 CA 0002                                                     5

      {¶ 13} "Strict compliance does not require an exact recitation of the precise

language of the rule, but instead focuses on whether the trial court explained or referred

to the right in a manner reasonably intelligible to that defendant." State v. Schmick, 8th

Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95210, 2011-Ohio-2263, ¶8.

      {¶ 14} Dumas argues the trial court's notification that the state was required to

prove his guilt by proof beyond a reasonable doubt was limited to the following:

      THE COURT: * * * So what you are waiving today is your ability to compel or force

      the State of Ohio to separately on their own present the evidence to the factfinder

      jury about all those cases if you presume to plead. Do you understand that sir?

      {¶ 15} Change of Plea Hearing, August 1, 2022, 27.

      {¶ 16} Dumas argues this passage demonstrates the trial court made it clear the

state had the burden of production, but was silent as to the burden of proof.

      {¶ 17} Directly before that statement, however, the trial court explained the state's

burden of proof:

             THE COURT: Now, when the state is talking about all of these things

             and presenting the evidence, it has a standard it has to prove. It has

             to prove the evidence, parts or piece, every piece and part of a

             charge. Each charge is called a count. Every piece of that they have

             to prove of the count. They have to prove all the parts to it to a
Morrow County, Case No. 2023 CA 0002                                                  6

           standard or else the jury has no idea whether or not the Defendant

           should be convicted or not.

           And there is a standard that is often misunderstood. The standard of

           proving all those parts or pieces of the charge beyond a reasonable

           doubt. Now reasonableness is a critical word in there. I don't say

           beyond any doubt. I didn't say beyond every doubt and often when

           you watch TV they will say that improperly.

           But that's because they have got bad writers or whatever it is. But

           the subject is beyond, beyond a reasonable doubt. And

           reasonableness is a matter of common sense. It is a common sense

           theory that we all use in our major decisions, if we are going to drive

           a car with a license, if we decide to get married, if we buy a car, we

           use common sense.

           We don't do something without using common sense. If we are going

           to buy a house, we know how we are going to pay for it. We don't

           walk into closing, sign all the documentation and say okay, how are

           you going to pay for this? You don't go I don't know. You go this is

           how I'm going to do it. There is going to be a mortgage. I'll get a loan

           from a bank. So reasonableness is common sense.

           So has to make common sense that the Defendant has been

           convicted. If I was talking about the burglary that there was

           individuals, that it happened during the night. There was one witness.
Morrow County, Case No. 2023 CA 0002                                                 7

           The witness is a thousand yards away from where it happens. The

           witness heard sounds and saw a skeletal shadow go across.

           That witness can't say who it was, what they looked like, did they

           have tattoos, male, female, gender, they are just saying it is a

           shadow.

           So if that's the only piece of evidence that's not beyond a reasonable

           doubt. That doesn't make common sense.

           However, if the Defendant is somebody that the burglary occurred in

           the middle of the day, at noon on a crowded street for whatever

           reason and there are12 people that could identify the Defendant. The

           Defendant didn't have a mask on. They are a very large individual.

           They could tell it was a man versus a woman. They could see their

           face. They could see that they didn't have a beard or had a beard.

           They could see they had tattoos. They knew they were 400 pounds

           and every one of those witnesses, but for one, and that person had

           difficulty because maybe they don't have their glasses, that's the

           person they identified. That's you know, 11 out of 12 witnesses, that's

           beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed burglary.

           So that's my hypothetical and that's where reasonable comes in

           today. So the State presents that evidence to the jury and has to rise

           to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt.

           ***
Morrow County, Case No. 2023 CA 0002                                                       8

               So what you are waiving today is your ability to compel or force the

               State of Ohio to separately on their own present the evidence to the

               factfinder jury about all those cases if you presume to plead. Do you

               understand that sir?

               MR. Dumas: Yes.

       {¶ 18} Change of Plea Hearing, August 1, 2022, 23-27.

       {¶ 19} Dumas neither mentions nor challenges the portion of the record that

precedes the two sentences he bases his argument upon. Based on our examination of

the entire record, we find that the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) by

explaining the state's burden of proof in a manner reasonably intelligible to Dumas before

accepting Dumas' guilty plea.

       {¶ 20} The sole assignment of error is overruled.

       {¶ 21} The judgment of the Morrow County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

By King, J.,

Gwin, P.J. and

Delaney, J. concur.