Court Opinion

ID: 9390532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-27 18:06:27.390997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:35.251384
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Johnston, 2023-Ohio-1392.]

                                         COURT OF APPEALS
                                     MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

  STATE OF OHIO                                  :   JUDGES:
                                                 :
                                                 :   Hon. John W. Wise, P.J.
         Plaintiff-Appellee                      :   Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
                                                 :   Hon. Andrew J. King, J.
  -vs-                                           :
                                                 :   Case No. CT2022-0076
                                                 :
  HENRY F. JOHNSTON                              :
                                                 :
                                                 :
       Defendant-Appellant                       :   OPINION

 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:                            Appeal from the Muskingum County
                                                     Court of Common Pleas, Case No.
                                                     CR2022-0267

 JUDGMENT:                                           AFFIRMED

 DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY:                             April 27, 2023

 APPEARANCES:

  For Plaintiff-Appellee:                            For Defendant-Appellant:

  RONALD WELCH                                       CHRIS BRIGDON
  MUSKINGUM COUNTY PROSECUTOR                        813 Somerset Rd.
  27 N. 5th St., P.O. Box 189                        Thornville, OH 43076
  Zanesville, OH 43702
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0076                                                   2

Delaney, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Henry F. Johnston appeals his convictions and

sentence by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas for two counts of Gross

Sexual Imposition, in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4) and 2907.05(B). Plaintiff-Appellee is

the State of Ohio.

                        FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       {¶2} On June 8, 2022, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Defendant-

Appellant Henry F. Johnston on four counts of Gross Sexual Imposition, with a sexually

violent predator specification, and one count of Kidnapping, with a sexually violent

predator specification and a sexual motivation specification. The charges were based on

his touching of a minor child for sexual gratification purposes. Johnston was arraigned on

June 29, 2022, and entered a plea of not guilty to the charges.

       {¶3} Johnston appeared for a change of plea hearing on August 31, 2022.

Johnston and the State entered into a plea agreement where Johnston withdrew his

general plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to (1) Count One, Gross Sexual

Imposition, as amended, a third-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(4), and (2)

Count Three, Gross Sexual Imposition, as amended, a third-degree felony in violation of

R.C. 2907.05(B). (T. 3-4). Johnston was required to register as a Tier III sex offender. (T.

4). The parties agreed the State would make no recommendation as to sentencing but

both parties reserved the right to argue for the appropriate sentence. (T. 4). The State

agreed to dismiss the sexually violent predator specification attached to Counts One,

Two, Three, Four, and Five. (T. 4).
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0076                                                  3

       {¶4} The trial court engaged in the plea colloquy and accepted Johnston’s guilty

pleas. (T. 5 – 11, 14). Johnston was currently serving a 54-month prison term until 2025

based on his conviction for Gross Sexual Imposition against his minor granddaughter in

Case No. CR2020-0379, but the trial ordered a presentence investigation prior to

sentencing. (T. 14).

       {¶5} Johnston appeared for his sentencing hearing on October 3, 2022. The

State made its recommendation for sentencing, which was more than the minimum 54

months, as Johnston was sentenced in the previous criminal action. (T. 6). The trial court

then reviewed the Tier III sex offender registration with Johnston, where he found

Johnston was a Tier III sex offender for registration purposes. (T. 6-7). Johnston

requested a sentence concurrent to the sentence in his prior conviction for Gross Sexual

Imposition, for which he was currently serving prison time. (T. 10). The trial court stated

it reviewed the presentence investigation, the case file, and the victim impact statements.

Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court sentenced Johnston to

48 months on Count One and 48 months on Count Two, to be served consecutively, for

an aggregate prison term of 96 months. (T. 12). The trial court found consecutive

sentences were necessary to protect the public and punish the offender, and not

disproportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and the danger posed to the public.

(T. 12). Johnston committed at least two of the multiple offenses as part of one or more

courses of conduct, the harm of which was so great or unusual that no single prison term

could adequately reflect the seriousness of the conduct. (T. 13). Finally, the trial court

found consecutive sentences were necessary based on Johnston’s history of criminal

conduct. (T. 13). Johnston’s conviction in Case No. 2020-0379 was based on gross
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0076                                                   4

sexual imposition against his minor granddaughter; and in this case, he was charged with

gross sexual imposition against a minor child he was babysitting.

       {¶6}    The trial court issued its sentencing entry on October 7, 2022.

                                      Anders Appeal

       {¶7} Appellate counsel for Johnston has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), rehearing den., 388 U.S. 924,

indicating the within appeal is wholly frivolous.

       {¶8} In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held if, after a conscientious

examination of the record, a defendant's counsel concludes the case is wholly frivolous,

then he or she should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at 744.

Counsel must accompany the request with a brief identifying anything in the record which

could arguably support the appeal. Id. Counsel also must: (1) furnish the client with a

copy of the brief and request to withdraw and (2) allow the client sufficient time to raise

any matters the client chooses. Id. Once the defendant's counsel satisfies these

requirements, the appellate court must fully examine the proceedings below to determine

if any arguably meritorious issues exist. If the appellate court also determines the appeal

is wholly frivolous, it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal

without violating constitutional requirements or may proceed to a decision on the merits

if state law so requires. Id.

       {¶9} Johnston’s counsel has filed a brief identifying two arguably meritorious

issues in the record: whether the trial court erred in accepting Johnston’s guilty pleas and

imposing consecutive sentences.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0076                                                    5

       {¶10} We find Johnston’s counsel has followed the procedures required by

Anders.

                                     Change of Plea

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

voluntarily. Although literal compliance with Crim. R. 11 is preferred, the trial court need

only “substantially comply” with the rule when dealing with 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 constitutional rights are: (1) a jury trial; (2) confrontation of witnesses

against him; (3) the compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; (4) that the

state must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial; and (5) that the

defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself. State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d

176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 19. If the trial court fails to strictly comply with

these requirements, the defendant's plea is invalid. Id. at ¶ 31.

       {¶13} The non-constitutional rights that the defendant must be informed of are:

(1) the nature of the charges; (2) the maximum penalty involved, which includes, if

applicable, an advisement on post-release control; (3) if applicable, that the defendant is

not eligible for probation or the imposition of community control sanctions; and (4) that

after entering a guilty plea or a no contest plea, the court may proceed directly to judgment

and sentencing. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)(b); Veney at ¶ 10-13; State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio

St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509, 423 N.E.2d 1224, ¶ 19-26, (postrelease control is a non-

constitutional advisement).
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0076                                                   6

       {¶14} For the non-constitutional rights, the trial court must substantially comply

with the mandates of Crim.R. 11. State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 564 N.E.2d 474

(1990). “Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances the

defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is

waiving.” Veney at ¶ 15. Furthermore, a defendant who challenges his guilty plea on the

basis that the advisement for the non-constitutional rights did not substantially comply

with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)(b) must also show a prejudicial effect, meaning the plea would

not have been otherwise entered. Veney at ¶ 15; State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 93,

364 N.E.2d 1163(1977).

       {¶15} When reviewing a plea'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.

       {¶16} We have reviewed the transcript of the hearing at which the trial court

conducted the plea colloquy required by Crim.R. 11 and we find the trial court substantially

complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b) and strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c).

The record supports that the trial court engaged in a proper plea colloquy, and that the

trial court accepted Johnston’s plea and properly proceeded to sentencing.

                                       Sentencing

       {¶17} Johnston pleaded guilty to two counts of Gross Sexual Imposition, both

third-degree felonies. This Court reviews felony sentences using the standard of review

set forth in R.C. 2953.08. State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 2016-Ohio-1002, 59
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0076                                                   7

N.E.3d 1231, ¶ 22; State v. Howell, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00004, 2015-Ohio-4049,

¶ 31. Subsection (G)(2) sets forth this Court's standard of review as follows:

       (2) The court hearing an appeal under division (A), (B), or (C) of this section

       shall review the record, including the findings underlying the sentence or

       modification given by the sentencing court.

       The appellate court may increase, reduce, or otherwise modify a sentence

       that is appealed under this section or may vacate the sentence and remand

       the matter to the sentencing court for resentencing. The appellate court's

       standard of review is not whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.

       The appellate court may take any action authorized by this division if it

       clearly and convincingly finds either of the following:

       (a) That record does not support the sentencing court's findings under

       division (B) or (D) of section 2929.13, division (B)(2)(e) or (C)(4) of section

       2929.14, or division (I) of section 2929 of the Revised Code, whichever, if

       any, is relevant;

       (b) That the sentence is contrary to law.

       {¶18} “Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is

more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty

as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal cases, and which will produce in

the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be

established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469, 120 N.E.2d 118 (1954), paragraph three

of the syllabus.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0076                                                    8

       {¶19} “A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial

court ‘considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed

in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant

within the permissible statutory range.’ ” State v. Morris, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 20-COA-

015, 2021-Ohio-2646, ¶ 90, quoting State v. Dinka, 12th Dist. Warren Nos. CA2019-03-

022 and CA2019-03-026, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36.

       {¶20} Upon review, we find the sentence imposed is not clearly and convincingly

contrary to law. The sentence is within the statutory range for a felony of the third degree,

and the trial court considered the R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors.

       {¶21} The trial court also ordered that Johnston’s sentences be served

consecutively with one another for an aggregate term of 96 months, which was to be

served consecutively to the sentence Johnston was currently serving in Case No.

CR2020-0379.

       {¶22} Pursuant to R.C. 2929.14(C)(4), the trial court must make specific findings

to impose consecutive sentences:

       (4) If multiple prison terms are imposed on an offender for convictions of

       multiple offenses, the court may require the offender to serve the prison

       terms consecutively if the court finds that the consecutive service is

       necessary to protect the public from future crime or to punish the offender

       and that consecutive sentences are not disproportionate to the seriousness

       of the offender's conduct and to the danger the offender poses to the public,

       and if the court also finds any of the following:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0076                                                 9

       (a) The offender committed one or more of the multiple offenses while the

       offender was awaiting trial or sentencing, was under a sanction imposed

       pursuant to section 2929.16, 2929.17, or 2929.18 of the Revised Code, or

       was under post-release control for a prior offense.

       (b) At least two of the multiple offenses were committed as part of one or

       more courses of conduct, and the harm caused by two or more of the

       multiple offenses so committed was so great or unusual that no single

       prison term for any of the offenses committed as part of any of the courses

       of conduct adequately reflects the seriousness of the offender's conduct.

       (c) The offender's history of criminal conduct demonstrates that consecutive

       sentences are necessary to protect the public from future crime by the

       offender.

       {¶23} At the sentencing hearing and in the October 7, 2022 sentencing entry, the

trial court made the requisite findings. The trial court recited the facts and stated when

Johnston pleaded guilty in this case, he showed no remorse. (T. 11). The multiple acts of

sexual abuse occurred when Johnston was babysitting the minor child, who was 9 or 10

years of age when the abuse occurred. (T. 12). The trial court’s findings pursuant to R.C.

2919.14(C)(4) are supported by the record.

       {¶24} We find no merit in the proposed Assignments of Error, and they are hereby

overruled. Furthermore, after independently reviewing the record, we agree with appellate

counsel's conclusion that no arguably meritorious claims exist upon which to base an

appeal. We therefore find the appeal to be wholly frivolous under Anders, grant counsel's

request to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2022-0076                                  10

                               CONCLUSION

       {¶25} The judgment of the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas is

affirmed.

By: Delaney, J.,

Wise, P.J. and

King, J., concur.