Court Opinion

ID: 9950306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 18:09:47.584007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:33.252605
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Stepp, 2024-Ohio-914.]

                           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                              FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                    SCIOTO COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                 :
                               :
     Plaintiff-Appellee,       :         Case No. 22CA4005
                               :
     v.                        :
                               :         DECISION AND
JAMES G. STEPP,                :         JUDGMENT ENTRY
                               :
     Defendant-Appellant.      :         RELEASED 3/07/2024
_____________________________________________________________
                          APPEARANCES:

Robert Shawn Stratton, Portsmouth, Ohio, for Appellant.

Shane A. Tieman, Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jay Willis, Assistant
Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, Portsmouth, Ohio, for Appellee.
_____________________________________________________________

Smith, P.J.

        {¶1} James G. Stepp, Appellant, appeals from the judgment of the Scioto

County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of one count of aggravated

trafficking in drugs, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and

(C)(1)(d); one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a fifth-degree felony in

violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(a); and one count of possessing criminal

tools, a fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A) and (C). On appeal,

Stepp essentially contends that his guilty pleas were not made knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily. However, after considering the totality of the
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                                  2

circumstances, we cannot conclude that Stepp’s guilty pleas were not knowing,

intelligent, or voluntary or that the trial court erred in its acceptance of the pleas.

Thus, we find no merit to his arguments. Accordingly, Stepp’s sole assignment of

error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                        FACTS

      {¶2} On March 29, 2022, Stepp was indicted on six felony counts as

follows:

      Count One:           Aggravated trafficking in drugs
                           (methamphetamine) in violation of R.C.
                           2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(1)(d), a second-
                           degree felony;

      Count Two:           Aggravated possession of drugs
                           (methamphetamine) in violation of R.C.
                           2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(c), a second-degree
                           felony;

      Count Three:         Aggravated possession of drugs
                           (methamphetamine) in violation of R.C.
                           2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(a), a fifth-degree
                           felony;

      Count Four:          Tampering with evidence in violation of
                           R.C. 2921.12(A)(1) and (B), a third-degree
                           felony;

      Count Five:          Possessing drug abuse instruments in
                           violation of R.C. 2925.12(A) and (C), a
                           second-degree misdemeanor; and

      Count Six:           Possessing criminal tools in violation of
                           R.C. 2023.23(A) and (C), a fifth-degree
                           felony.
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                               3

In addition to naming Stepp, the indictment also named Neil T. Melvin and Angel

M. Thompson as co-defendants.1 The charges stemmed from a traffic stop that

occurred on February 23, 2022.

           {¶3} On August 5, 2022, Stepp filed a motion requesting that the court

allow him to join the motion to suppress filed by his co-defendant, Melvin. The

trial court allowed the motion to join but ultimately denied the motion to suppress

after holding a suppression hearing on August 17, 2022. Prior to start of the

suppression hearing, plea negotiations took place but did not result in a plea

agreement. The plea offer that was made was withdrawn by the State at that time.

The matter then proceeded to a final pretrial hearing on September 1, 2022. The

transcript from that hearing reveals that the trial court confirmed that any prior

offers that had been made by the State had been withdrawn and that no counter-

offers remained on the table. The matter then proceeded to trial.

           {¶4} On the morning of the scheduled trial, the trial court was informed that

a plea agreement had been reached. The transcript from the combined plea and

sentencing hearing that was held on October 3, 2022 reveals that Stepp agreed to

plead guilty to counts one, three, and six of the indictment in exchange for the

dismissal of counts two, four, and five. The deal also included the State’s

agreement to recommend a sentence of either community control or probation for

1
    It appears from the record that Thompson was Stepp’s girlfriend.
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                             4

Stepp’s girlfriend, once she was apprehended. The transcript indicates that the

parties agreed they would “argue sentencing” that morning.

      {¶5} As a result, the trial court conducted the plea portion of the

proceedings immediately thereafter and accepted Stepp’s guilty pleas. Once the

plea portion of the hearing was concluded, defense counsel and the State made

their arguments to the court on the issue of sentencing. When the State concluded

its argument, defense counsel informed the court that Stepp appeared to be

confused in that he believed he was agreeing to the prior plea terms that had been

previously withdrawn by the State. The trial court stated that if Stepp wished to

withdraw his plea, a hearing on the matter would be held. At that time, Stepp

conferred with his counsel and then defense counsel informed the court that Stepp

wished to proceed. The sentencing hearing was concluded without any further

mention of Stepp desiring to withdraw his guilty pleas.

      {¶6} The trial court ultimately sentenced Stepp to a mandatory minimum

prison term of 4 years, to an indefinite maximum prison term of up to 6 years, on

count one. It also sentenced Stepp to 12-month prison terms on counts three and

six, to be served consecutively to each other and consecutive to the sentence

imposed on count one, for an aggregate minimum prison term of 6 years to an

indefinite maximum prison term of up to 8 years, with 4 years being mandatory.
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                              5

Stepp now appeals from the judgment of the trial court, setting forth a single

assignment of error for our review.

                            ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

      I.     THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO INQUIRY [SIC]
             OF MR. STEPP ABOUT WHETHER HE
             UNDERSTAND [SIC] THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS
             PLEA     SPECIFICALLY    WHETHER       HE
             UNDERSTOOD THAT HE WOULD BE ARGUING
             SENTENCING. THE PLEA DOES NOT RISE TO THE
             LEVEL   OF    BEING   MADE    KNOWINGLY,
             INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY.

                          ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

      {¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Stepp contends that his plea was not

made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. More specifically, Stepp argues

that the trial court erred in proceeding with sentencing after defense counsel

informed the court that Stepp had misunderstood the fact that the initial plea

agreement had been withdrawn and that he would simply be “arguing sentencing.”

The State responds by arguing that Stepp has failed to show that the trial court’s

colloquy with him failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 or that his plea “was anything

other than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” The State draws this Court’s

attention to the fact that Stepp’s guilty pleas were entered in exchange for the

dismissal of three additional charges and further notes that Stepp has, at no time,

filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas.
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                                6

                                 Standard of Review

      {¶8} Crim.R. 11(C)(2) governs the acceptance of guilty pleas by the trial

court in felony cases and provides that a trial court should not accept a guilty plea

without first addressing the defendant personally and:

      (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.

      (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} “Thus, prior to accepting a guilty plea, a ‘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. Tolle, 2022-Ohio-2839, 194 N.E.3d 410, ¶ 9 (4th

Dist.), quoting State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115, paragraph one

of the syllabus (1981). See also Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). “ ‘In addition to these

constitutional rights, the trial court must determine that the defendant understands
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                                 7

the nature of the charge, the maximum penalty involved, and the effect of the plea.’

” Tolle at ¶ 9, quoting State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347, 2016-Ohio-5487,

71 N.E.3d 180, ¶ 41.

      {¶10} When reviewing a defendant's constitutional rights (right to a jury

trial, right to call witnesses, etc.), a trial court must strictly comply with Crim.R.

11(C)(2)(c). Tolle, supra, at ¶ 10; State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-

5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 18. In contrast, when reviewing a defendant's non-

constitutional rights (maximum penalty involved, understanding effect of plea,

etc.), a trial court must substantially comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b).

Tolle at ¶ 11; State v. Veney, supra, ¶ 18. “ ‘[S]ubstantial compliance’ means that

‘under the totality of the circumstances the defendant subjectively understands the

implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving.’ ” State v. Morrison, 4th Dist.

Adams No. 07CA854, 2008-Ohio-4913, ¶ 9, quoting State v. Puckett, 4th Dist.

Scioto No. 03CA2920, 2005-Ohio-1640, ¶ 10, citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio

St.2d 86, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977); State v. Carter, 60 Ohio St.2d 34, 396 N.E.2d

757 (1979).

      {¶11} As this Court observed in Tolle, supra, the Veney Court held as

follows regarding the acceptance of guilty pleas:

      “ ‘When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea
      must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure
      on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea
      unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                             8

       the Ohio Constitution.’ ” Veney, supra, at ¶ 7, quoting State v.
       Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996); State v.
       Montgomery, supra, at ¶ 40; State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472,
       2011-Ohio-4130, 953 N.E.2d 826, ¶ 9.

See Tolle, at ¶ 12.

“ ‘It is the trial court's duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant “has a full

understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.” ’ ” Tolle, at ¶

13; quoting Montgomery at ¶ 40, in turn quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238,

244, 89 S.Ct. 1709 (1969); State v. Conley, 4th Dist. Adams No. 19CA1091, 2019-

Ohio-4172, ¶ 34.

       {¶12} When an appellate court evaluates whether a defendant knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily entered a guilty plea, the court must independently

review the record to ensure that the trial court complied with the Crim.R. 11

constitutional and procedural safeguards. See Tolle, at ¶ 14; State v. Leonhart, 4th

Dist. Washington No. 13CA38, 2014-Ohio-5601, ¶ 36; State v. Eckler, 4th Dist.

Adams No. 09CA878, 2009-Ohio-7064, ¶ 48; Veney, supra, at ¶ 13 (“Before

accepting a guilty or no-contest plea, the court must make the determinations and

give the warnings required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b) and notify the defendant

of the constitutional rights listed in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c)”); State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio

St.3d 127, 128, 566 N.E.2d 658 (1991) (“When a trial court or appellate court is

reviewing a plea submitted by a defendant, its focus should be on whether the

dictates of Crim.R. 11 have been followed”); See also State v. Shifflet, 2015-Ohio-
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                                 9

4250, 44 N.E.3d 966 (4th Dist.), ¶ 13, citing State v. Smith, 4th Dist. Washington

No. 12CA11, 2013-Ohio-232, ¶ 10.

      {¶13} “The purpose of Crim.R. 11(C) is ‘to convey to the defendant certain

information so that he can make a voluntary and intelligent decision whether to

plead guilty.’ ” Tolle at ¶ 15, quoting Ballard, supra, at 479-480. As set forth

above, although literal compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) is preferred, it is not

required. See State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d

462, ¶ 29, citing State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85, 2004-Ohio-4415, 814 N.E.2d

51, ¶ 19. Therefore, an appellate court will ordinarily affirm a trial court's

acceptance of a guilty plea if the record reveals that the trial court engaged in a

meaningful dialogue with the defendant and explained “in a manner reasonably

intelligible to that defendant” the consequences of pleading guilty. Ballard at

paragraph two of the syllabus; Barker at ¶ 14; Veney at ¶ 27; Conley at ¶ 37.

      {¶14} Additionally, it has been held that a defendant who seeks to

invalidate a plea on the basis that the trial court partially, but not fully, informed

the defendant of his or her non-constitutional rights must demonstrate a prejudicial

effect. See Tolle at ¶ 16; Veney at ¶ 17; Clark at ¶ 31. To demonstrate that a

defendant suffered prejudice due to the failure to fully inform the defendant of his

or her non-constitutional rights, the defendant must establish that, but for the trial

court's failure, a guilty plea would not have been entered. See Clark at ¶ 32, citing
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                              10

State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990) (stating that “[t]he

test is ‘whether the plea would have otherwise been made’ ”). However, when a

trial court completely fails to inform a defendant of his or her non-constitutional

rights, the plea must be vacated, and no analysis of prejudice is required. See

Clark at ¶ 32, citing State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509, 881

N.E.2d 1224, ¶ 22.

                                     Legal Analysis

      {¶15} Stepp makes several arguments and interesting statements in support

of his assignment of error. First, Stepp’s appellate brief sets forth a section of the

combined plea and sentencing hearing transcript and represents to this Court that

he expressed confusion regarding his understanding of the maximum sentence he

was facing “during the plea hearing[.]” Thus, Stepp seems to suggest that the trial

court erred in not clearing up the confusion before accepting the pleas and

proceeding with sentencing. However, as will be discussed more fully below,

Stepp’s counsel did not mention any confusion on the part of Stepp during the plea

portion of the hearing. In fact, the record indicates that defense counsel did not

allege confusion on Stepp’s part until after his guilty pleas had been accepted, and

until midway through the sentencing hearing after the State made its arguments

regarding sentencing to the court.

      {¶16} Next, Stepp argues/states as follows:
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                              11

      This court like so many other courts make the statement that the
      court can proceed with sentencing and impose any sentence that
      the court deems necessary up to the maximum. It is common for
      the court to follow the plea recommendation even after making
      such a statement. The fact that the court spoke about the
      maximum definite and indefinite sentences above should not be
      taken as a [sic] indication of acquiescence to the possibility of a
      maximum sentence.

Initially, we must note that it is abundantly clear from this record that all prior plea

offers had been rejected by Stepp and had been withdrawn by the State. It is also

abundantly clear from the record that Stepp finally entered the plea agreement at

issue in exchange for the dismissal of three other pending charges and leniency in

sentencing to be shown to his girlfriend, with an express agreement that his own

sentencing would be argued to the court. Thus, any suggestion by Stepp that he

expected the trial court to impose a jointly recommended or agreed sentence as part

of the plea agreement is simply not supported by the record. Further, and contrary

to Stepp’s argument, when a court informs a defendant of the maximum sentence

he or she is facing in the absence of a plea agreement that includes an agreed

sentence, the defendant should heed the warnings of the court when proceeding

with entering a guilty plea.

      {¶17} Stepp further argues/states as follows:

      The Court did substantially comply with Crim.R. 11. However,
      the Court failed to inquiry [sic] of the Defendant whether he
      understood the possibility of receiving the maximum sentence or
      a sentence other than the prior plea agreement. Without an
      explanation of the effect of his guilty plea, specifically that the
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                               12

      Defendant was not entering a plea agreement but was merely
      arguing sentencing, the Defendant’s plea was not knowingly,
      intelligently, and voluntarily made. (Emphasis added).

Stepp essentially asserts that the trial court failed to fully explain “the effect of his

guilty plea,” while simultaneously asserting that “[t]he Court did substantially

comply with Crim.R. 11.” These two assertions are incongruent. Moreover, the

record only supports one of these assertions, which is that the trial court

substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 in informing Stepp of the maximum

penalty related to his guilty pleas, which as set forth above, constitutes a non-

constitutional right for which only substantial compliance is required.

      {¶18} After a review of the entire record, it appears that prior to the

beginning of the suppression hearing, there was some discussion on the record

related to Stepp pleading guilty to one count of second-degree-felony trafficking in

drugs in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts of the indictment,

along with a recommendation by the State for a four-year mandatory prison term,

but with the possibility of the trial court ordering that only two of the four years be

mandatory. However, that plea offer was rejected on the record by Stepp prior to

the start of the suppression hearing and was at that time withdrawn by the State.

Thereafter, Stepp’s motion to suppress was denied and the matter proceeded to a

final pretrial hearing where Stepp agreed through counsel that all prior offers had

been withdrawn and that there were no counter-offers on the table. The trial court
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                             13

explained on the record the maximum penalty Stepp would be facing absent a plea

agreement and Stepp voiced understanding of the information and stated he had no

questions about the maximum possible sentence.

      {¶19} Thereafter, on the morning of the scheduled jury trial, an agreement

was reached whereby Stepp would plead guilty to counts one, three, and six, in

exchange for the dismissal of counts two, four, and five, and the parties would

argue sentencing to the court. A review of the plea and sentencing hearing

transcript reveals that the plea deal also included the State’s agreement to offer

Stepp’s girlfriend, who was a co-defendant, either community control or probation

in light of her “lesser involvement” in the matter. All of this was discussed in open

court and both Stepp and his counsel stated they understood the terms.

      {¶20} The trial court confirmed Stepp not only signed, but that he

understood, a written plea form, a written waiver of trial by jury form, as well as a

written indefinite sentencing advisory form. Thereafter, the trial court engaged

Stepp in a complete Crim.R. 11 colloquy before accepting his guilty pleas and

concluding the plea portion of the hearing. The plea colloquy included a detailed

recitation of the maximum penalties for counts one, three, and six, and Stepp

reaffirmed his signature on the written forms once the trial court’s oral explanation

of the maximum penalties was concluded. The matter then proceeded to

sentencing.
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                            14

      {¶21} In arguing sentencing to the court, defense counsel stated that Stepp

had a drug addiction problem and requested that the court “impose the same

sentence [they] had previously discussed.” In making its argument to the court, the

State referenced the large volume of methamphetamine recovered, which seemed

to indicate more than personal use, and also noted Stepp’s lengthy criminal history.

However, the State refrained from making a sentencing recommendation and

instead essentially left the sentencing decision to the court, stating that “whatever

the Court sees fit we will certainly accept * * *.” At that point, and when the trial

court asked defense counsel if he had anything to add in mitigation, defense

counsel asked to approach and stated that Stepp “thought he was pleading and still

getting the same thing we talked about.” Defense counsel further stated that Stepp

“may * * * want to withdraw his plea.” The trial court informed defense counsel

that if Stepp wished to withdraw his guilty pleas the court would hold a hearing.

At that point, defense counsel and Stepp conferred and then defense counsel stated:

“We’re prepared to go forward, Your Honor.” As a result of Stepp’s voiced

misunderstanding, the trial court offered Stepp an “additional opportunity of

allocution,” which Stepp declined. The trial court went on to impose sentence and

the sentencing portion of the hearing was concluded without any further mention

of Stepp wanting to withdraw his guilty pleas.
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                              15

      {¶22} Although not identical, the arguments contained herein are somewhat

analogous to the arguments which were raised and rejected in State v. Sheets, 4th

Dist. Jackson No 22CA1, 2023-Ohio-2592. In Sheets, the defendant argued that a

statement she made during the allocution portion of the combined plea and

sentencing hearing constituted a statement of actual innocence on her part, or in the

alternative, that “she was confused regarding the nature of the offenses to which

she was pleading guilty.” Id. at ¶ 18. Although the present case does not involve a

statement of actual innocence, it does essentially involve the claim that Stepp was

confused as to the terms of the plea agreement, specifically with respect to the

maximum penalties for the charges to which he was pleading guilty. In Sheets, we

reviewed the complete record and determined, based upon the totality of the

circumstances, that Sheets’ argument was not well taken. Id. at ¶ 30. In reaching

that decision, we reviewed and relied on the documents provided to Sheets, which

included the written plea form, as well as her statements during the plea colloquy

as evidenced by the plea hearing transcript, and her counsel’s representations as to

her understanding. Id. at ¶ 28, 30.

      {¶23} Here, a review of the suppression hearing transcript, the final pre-trial

hearing transcript, the written plea form, as well as the combined plea and

sentencing hearing transcript indicates that the trial court substantially complied

with Crim.R. 11(C) in accepting Stepp’s guilty pleas. Therefore, after considering
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                             16

the totality of the circumstances, we cannot conclude that Stepp’s guilty pleas were

not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary or that the trial court erred in its acceptance

of the pleas. Accordingly, we find no merit to Stepp’s sole assignment of error and

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                      JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                              17

                               JUDGMENT ENTRY

     It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and costs be assessed to
Appellant.
      The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the
Scioto County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
        IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON
BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR
THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed 60 days upon
the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant
to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the
pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will
terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day period, or the failure of the
Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 45-day
appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme
Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal
prior to expiration of 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such
dismissal.
       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule
27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
      Abele, J., & Hess, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.

                                 For the Court,

                                 _____________________________
                                 Jason P. Smith
                                 Presiding Judge
Scioto App. No. 22CA4005                                                   18

                           NOTICE TO COUNSEL
      Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final
judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the
date of filing with the clerk.