Court Opinion

ID: 9907279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 00:07:06.834115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:14.159139
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Rutherford, 2023-Ohio-4376.]

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                           ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                      CASE NO. 2023-T-0034

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                    Criminal Appeal from the
        - vs -                                      Court of Common Pleas

FREDDIE G. RUTHERFORD, JR.,
                                                    Trial Court No. 2022 CR 00810
                 Defendant-Appellant.

                                                 OPINION

                                     Decided: December 4, 2023
                                         Judgment: Affirmed

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Ryan J. Sanders, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH
44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Sarah G. Ogden, Megargel, Eskridge, & Mullins, LLP, 231 South Chestnut Street,
Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Defendant-Appellant).

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.

        {¶1}     Appellant, Freddie G. Rutherford, Jr., appeals his convictions following his

guilty pleas to attempted failure to comply with order or signal of police officer and

receiving stolen property. For the following reasons, we affirm.

        {¶2}     At appellant’s plea hearing, the State provided the following factual basis.

On or around October 14, 2022, officers with the Trumbull County Sheriff’s Office and

Warren City Police Department attempted to stop appellant for a moving violation. At the

time, appellant was driving a motorcycle. When officers activated their flashing lights and
sirens, appellant did not stop. Appellant accelerated to an unsafe speed and took several

actions that placed nearby persons and property in substantial risk of serious physical

harm. Once appellant stopped, it was later learned that appellant was driving a motorcycle

that was reported stolen.

       {¶3}   On November 29, 2022, an indictment was filed charging appellant with

failure to comply with order or signal of police officer and receiving stolen property. On

March 14, 2023, appellant entered a guilty plea to an amended indictment charging him

with attempted failure to comply with order or signal of police officer, a felony of the fourth

degree, and receiving stolen property, also a felony of the fourth degree.

       {¶4}   On April 27, 2023, a sentencing hearing was held. Appellant was sentenced

to 18 months on each felony count, to be served consecutively, totaling 36 months.

       {¶5}   Appellant now appeals his conviction.

       {¶6}   Appellant’s sole assignment of error asserts: “The trial court erred by

accepting appellant’s guilty pleas because they were not made knowingly, intelligently,

and voluntarily.”

       {¶7}   “This [C]ourt reviews de novo whether the trial court accepted a plea in

compliance with Crim.R. 11. State v. Dundics, 2016-Ohio-1368, 62 N.E.3d 1013, ¶ 10

(11th Dist.).” State v. Willard, 2021-Ohio-2552, 175 N.E.3d 989, ¶ 51 (11th Dist.).

       {¶8}   Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), provides in relevant part:

              (2) In felony cases the court * * * shall not accept a plea of
              guilty * * * 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 * * *.

                                              2

Case No. 2023-T-0034
       {¶9}   In his brief, appellant contends the trial court did not inform him of the

“precise consequences of pleading guilty on his parole” and that the trial court “did not

ensure Mr. Rutherford understood the maximum penalty he faced by pleading guilty.”

Appellant further asserts that “the court stated the maximum penalty he faced after Mr.

Rutherford pleaded guilty.”

       {¶10} Regarding appellant’s assertion that the trial court did not inform him of the

precise consequences of pleading guilty on parole, appellant’s argument lacks merit. This

Court would note that in his prior felony case, appellant would have been informed of the

consequences for violating post release control by committing a new felony. Further,

according to the transcript of the plea hearing held on March 14, 2023, the trial court

asked appellant if he was on probation or community control in Ohio, or any other State.

Appellant informed the court that he was, in fact, on parole. The trial court then informed

appellant, “[y]ou might want to communicate with your parole officer about this charge

because that could result in your parole being violated and being sent back to prison on

those charges; do you understand that?” Appellant responded, “[y]es, sir,” indicating that

he understood that by entering a plea of guilty, his conviction could result in an additional

sentence for violating his parole. The possible penalties of pleading guilty were further

explained in the written plea agreement that appellant read and signed prior to entering

his plea.

       {¶11} The trial court asked appellant if he had read the plea agreement, and

appellant responded affirmatively. After each count, the agreement states:

              I * * * understand the consequences entering this plea,
              including the penalties which can be from: 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
              12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, or 18 months[.] * * * I understand that if

                                              3

Case No. 2023-T-0034
              I am charged with multiple counts, the Court could impose
              consecutive sentences.
              I understand that my plea of guilty may result in an additional
              sentence for a parole or post release control violation, and/or
              probation or community control sanction violation. I
              understand that any such sentence shall be consecutive to
              the instant sentence * * *.

       {¶12} Appellant argues that the trial court did not inform him of his maximum

potential sentence until after accepting his guilty plea. Appellant’s original charge for

failure to comply with order or signal of police officer was a felony of the third degree,

which requires a consecutive sentence if prison is imposed. Appellant, however, pleaded

to attempted failure to comply with order or signal of police officer, a felony of the fourth

degree, which leaves consecutive sentencing to the discretion of the trial court. In addition

to language about potential sentencing in the plea agreement, the plea agreement

indicates that that no prison sentence was presumed necessary or mandatory. The

transcripts indicate that the trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea after stating

appellant’s potential range of sentencing.

       {¶13} Appellant first acknowledged to the court that he had read and understood

the provisions of the plea agreement he signed:

              THE COURT: Have you reviewed it with your attorney?
              THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
              THE COURT: Do you have any questions about it?
              THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
              THE COURT: On the last page of this plea agreement there’s
              a signature above your name. Did you sign the plea
              agreement?
              THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

                                             4

Case No. 2023-T-0034
                 THE COURT: Have you had enough time to consult with your
                 attorney?
                 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
                 THE COURT: Has he answered all of your questions for you?
                 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
                 THE COURT: Have you had the opportunity to review the
                 indictment, the discovery, and all the legal documents that
                 were provided by the State of Ohio with your counsel?
                 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
                 THE COURT: Are you satisfied with your attorney?
                 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

       {¶14} The plea agreement explicitly stated the range of potential sentences, the

potential for the sentences to run consecutively, and the potential for an additional

sentence for a parole violation.

       {¶15} Crim.R.11 requires that before the trial court accepts a guilty plea in a

criminal case, it must inform the defendant of the constitutional rights they are waiving, to

determine that the defendant understands the charges, maximum penalty, and the effect

of their plea.

                 Before accepting a guilty plea in a felony case, a “trial court
                 must inform the defendant that he is waiving his privilege
                 against compulsory self-incrimination, his right to jury trial, his
                 right to confront his accusers, and his right of compulsory
                 process of witnesses.” State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d
                 473, 20 O.O.3d 397, 423 N.E.2d 115, paragraph one of the
                 syllabus. In addition to these constitutional rights, the trial
                 court is required to determine that the defendant understands
                 the nature of the charge, the maximum penalty involved, and
                 the effect of the plea. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b).

State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211, 214, 2007-Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677, 681, ¶ 12.

       {¶16} Further, “if the trial judge imperfectly explained nonconstitutional rights such

as the right to be informed of the maximum possible penalty and the effect of the plea, a
                                                 5

Case No. 2023-T-0034
substantial-compliance rule applies. (Citations omitted) * * * Under this standard, a slight

deviation from the text of the rule is permissible; so long as the totality of the

circumstances indicates that ‘the defendant subjectively understands the implications of

his plea and the rights he is waiving,’ the plea may be upheld. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d at 108,

564 N.E.2d 474.” State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 244-45, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893

N.E.2d 462, 469, ¶ 31.

       {¶17} The transcripts indicate that the trial court determined from appellant’s

responses, that appellant understood the implications of his plea and the rights he was

waiving. While the trial court did not articulate the full range of sentences, it did state the

maximum sentences involved:

              THE COURT: The Court finds the Defendant has been
              informed of his constitutional rights, that he understands the
              nature of the charges, the effect of the change of pleas to
              guilty as well as the possible penalties that can be imposed.
              You are looking at – between 6 and 18 months on each count
              * * * the Court accepts the Defendant’s change of pleas of
              guilty * * *.

       {¶18} Appellant further asserts that the trial court did not inform him of the

potential for consecutive prison terms. While again, appellant acknowledged that he

understood this was a possibility by signing the plea agreement, the trial court was under

no obligation to address the potential for discretionary consecutive sentences. See State

v. Willard, 2021-Ohio-2552, 175 N.E.3d 989, 993, ¶ 7.

       {¶19} The record indicates that appellant represented to the trial court that he had

read, understood, and had plenty of time to ask questions of his counsel about the

provisions contained within the plea agreement. The plea agreement clearly explained

the maximum potential sentences appellant could face, that the sentences could be

                                              6

Case No. 2023-T-0034
consecutive, and that there could be additional sentences imposed because of appellant’s

violation of parole because of this conviction. The trial court explained to appellant at the

plea hearing the maximum potential sentence for each count that appellant pleaded guilty

to. Appellant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.

       {¶20} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is without merit.

       {¶21} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the sentence of the Trumbull County

Court of Common Pleas.

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.,

EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,

concur.

                                             7

Case No. 2023-T-0034