Court Opinion

ID: 9385875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-10 16:07:08.307372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:53.171600
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Chambers, 2023-Ohio-1107.]

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

STATE OF OHIO,

        PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,                              CASE NO. 3-22-41

        v.

THOMAS CHAMBERS,                                         OPINION

        DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

               Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
                          Trial Court No. 22-CR-0246

                                     Judgment Affirmed

                             Date of Decision: April 3, 2023

APPEARANCES:

        Christopher Bazeley for Appellant

        Bailey Higgins for Appellee
Case No. 3-22-41

WALDICK, J.

       {¶1} Defendant-appellant, Thomas Chambers (“Chambers”), brings this

appeal from the September 27, 2022, judgment of the Crawford County Common

Pleas Court sentencing him to nine months in prison after he pled guilty to, and was

convicted of, Aggravated Possession of Drugs. On appeal, Chambers argues that his

plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. For the reasons that follow we

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                    Background

       {¶2} On July 26, 2022, Chambers was indicted for Aggravated Possession of

Drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth degree felony, and Illegal Use or

Possession of Drug Paraphernalia in violation of R.C. 2925.14(C)(1), a fourth

degree misdemeanor. Chambers originally pled not guilty to the charges.

       {¶3} On September 26, 2022, Chambers entered into a written, negotiated

plea agreement wherein he agreed to plead guilty to Aggravated Possession of

Drugs as charged. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charge.

       {¶4} Subsequently, the trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 dialogue with

Chambers and determined that he was entering a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary

guilty plea. Chambers’s plea was accepted and he was found guilty.

       {¶5} The case proceeded immediately to sentencing, with the trial court

sentencing Chambers to serve a nine-month prison term. A judgment entry

                                          -2-
Case No. 3-22-41

memorializing his sentence was filed September 27, 2022. It is from this judgment

that Chambers appeals, asserting the following assignment of error for our review.

                            Assignment of Error
       Chambers’ guilty plea was not knowingly or intelligently given.

       {¶6} In his assignment of error, Chambers contends that his plea was not

knowing and intelligent because the trial court did not adequately inform him that

his plea was a complete admission of guilt.

                                Relevant Authority

       {¶7} “All guilty pleas must be made knowingly, voluntarily, and

intelligently.” State v. Moll, 3d Dist. Defiance Nos. 4-14-17 and 4-14-18, 2015-

Ohio-926, ¶ 9, citing State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 (1996). “Failure on any

of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the

United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.” Engle at 527.

       {¶8} Criminal Rule 11(C)(2), which governs guilty pleas for felony-level

offenses, provides:

       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.

                                        -3-
Case No. 3-22-41

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

       {¶9} 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 the

defendant’s constitutional rights. State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-

5200, ¶ 31. When a trial court fails to strictly comply with this duty, the defendant’s

plea is invalid. Id. However, a trial court is only required to substantially comply

with the non-constitutional notifications in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b). Id. at ¶ 14-

17.

       {¶10} An appellate court reviews the substantial-compliance standard based

upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s plea and

determines whether he subjectively understood the implications of his plea and the

rights he waived. State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509, ¶

20. “Furthermore, a defendant who challenges his guilty plea on the basis that it was

not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made must show a prejudicial effect. *

                                          -4-
Case No. 3-22-41

* * The test is whether the plea would have otherwise been made.” State v. Nero,

56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108 (1990).

                                     Analysis

       {¶11} Chambers’s contention that the trial court failed to inform him of the

“effect of his plea” requires us to review a portion of the Crim.R. 11 dialogue from

the change-of-plea hearing. During the following exchange, the trial court discussed

the rights Chambers would be waving by entering his guilty plea in this case.

       THE COURT: Is this your signature on the Plea Agreement?

       MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, sir.

       THE COURT: Okay, No. 1, you’re giving up you’re right to have
       a full Jury Trial; do you understand that?

       MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, sir.

       THE COURT: At this Jury Trial you could Cross-Examine the
       State’s witnesses, you could require the State to prove your guilt
       beyond any reasonable doubt, all 12 Jurors would have to
       unanimously find you guilty before I could enter a finding of
       guilty. You would have to have, you would have the right to use
       the Subpoena power of the Court to Summon witnesses to come
       in for you, but you could not be forced to testify against yourself;
       do you understand that?

       MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, sir.

       THE COURT: All right, so there is no recommendation in this
       case. I’ve explained Community Control to you, Post-Release
       Control to you, the sentences that are available, I’ve explained the
       rights that you’re giving up, by pleading guilty you’re basically
       admitting the charge, waiving any defenses. It’s a little different,

                                        -5-
Case No. 3-22-41

       but I think I’ve covered everything, did I cover everything from
       the State, Defense, does anybody have anything that I’ve missed?

       [PROSECUTOR]: No, Your Honor.

       [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, Your Honor.

(Sept. 26, 2022, Tr. at 5-7).

       {¶12} Chambers contends that the trial court’s statement of “by pleading

guilty you’re basically admitting the charge, waving any defenses” did not explain

the effect of his guilty plea, making his plea invalid. More specifically, he argues

that the trial court failed to inform him that his plea of guilty constituted “a complete

admission of [his] guilt.” Crim.R. 11(B)(1).

       {¶13} In our own review of the matter, we emphasize that a trial court’s “

‘[l]iteral compliance with Crim.R. 11, in all respects, remains preferable to inexact

plea hearing recitations.’ ” State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶

29, quoting State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85, 2004-Ohio-4415, ¶ 19, fn. 2.

Nevertheless, “literal compliance” is not the standard; rather, the standard for

evaluating whether a defendant was informed of the effect of his plea is “substantial

compliance.” State v. Jones, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-19-11, 2020-Ohio-3919, ¶ 11.

       {¶14} Here, Chambers was informed at the plea hearing that he was

admitting the charge and waving any defenses. In addition, his written plea

agreement, which he signed prior to the Crim.R. 11 dialogue, also contained the

                                          -6-
Case No. 3-22-41

language, “By pleading, I admit the truth of the facts and circumstances alleged.”1

(Doc. No. 11). We have previously held that nearly identical language constituted

substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b)/(B)(1). Jones, supra, at ¶ 14

(“Specifically, the written-plea agreement reflects that Jones acknowledged that

“[b]y pleading, [he] admit[s] the truth of the facts and circumstances alleged[.]”).

         {¶15} Moreover, even if the trial court had failed to substantially comply

with Crim.R. 11, Chambers has demonstrated no prejudice here. He has presented

no evidence that he would not have entered his plea if the trial court had used the

actual language contained in Crim.R. 11 regarding the effect of his guilty plea. State

v. Lindemayer, 5th Dist. Licking No. 08-CA-142, 2009-Ohio-3982, ¶ 77. Finally,

he did not assert a claim of actual innocence at the plea hearing. “A defendant who

has entered a guilty plea without asserting actual innocence is presumed to

understand that he has completely admitted his guilt.” Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85,

2004-Ohio-4415, at syllabus

         {¶16} In sum, based on the record before us, we find that the trial court was

in substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11, and that, in any event, Chambers has

demonstrated no prejudice from any alleged departure from Crim.R. 11. Chambers

1
  Chambers actually focuses his argument in his brief by arguing that the written plea agreement did not
adequately inform him of the effect of his plea. However, he can be informed orally or in writing of the effect
of his plea, thus both the Crim.R. 11 dialogue and his written plea agreement are relevant to a determination
of whether he was adequately informed of the effect of his plea. See State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211, 2007-
Ohio-6093, ¶ 51.

                                                     -7-
Case No. 3-22-41

has thus not demonstrated that his plea was anything less than knowing, intelligent,

and voluntary. For all of these reasons, Chambers’s assignment of error is overruled.

                                    Conclusion

       {¶17} Having found no error prejudicial to Chambers in the particulars

assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Crawford County Common

Pleas Court.

                                                                Judgment Affirmed

MILLER, P.J. and ZIMMERMAN, J., concur.

/jlr

                                         -8-