State v. Jordan , 2017 Ohio 7195 ( 2017 )

[Cite as State v. Jordan, 2017-Ohio-7195.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case Nos. 27441 and 27442
:
v. : Trial Court Case Nos. 2016-CR-3679
: and 2016-CR-3727
LAWRENCE S. JORDAN :
: (Criminal Appeal from
Defendant-Appellant : Common Pleas Court)
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 11th day of August, 2017.
...........
MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by ANDREW T. FRENCH, Atty. Reg. No. 0069384, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appellate Division,
Montgomery County Courts Building, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
GARY C. SCHAENGOLD, Atty. Reg. No. 0007144, 4 East Schantz Avenue, Dayton, Ohio
45409
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
TUCKER, J.
-2-
{¶ 1} The trial court, during the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, informed Defendant-
appellant Lawrence Jordan that he was eligible to be sentenced to a term of community
control sanctions (CCS). Jordan, in fact, was not eligible to be sentenced to CCS
prompting the trial court to inform Jordan at the sentencing hearing that the imposed
prison term was mandatory. Jordan’s plea, under this circumstance and as conceded
by the State of Ohio, was less than knowing and voluntary. The trial court’s judgment,
as such, is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Jordan, on December 16, 2016, was indicted on one count of aggravated
burglary, a first degree felony. This case was assigned Case No. 2016-CR-3679.
Jordan, twelve days later on December 28, 2016, was indicted on charges of illegal
conveyance of a drug of abuse onto the grounds of a detention facility, a third degree
felony, possession of drugs (heroin), a fourth degree felony, and possession of drugs
(methamphetamine), a fifth degree felony. This case was assigned Case No. 2016-CR-
3727.
{¶ 3} Jordan initially pleaded not guilty to the charges encompassed by both case
numbers. Jordan appeared before the trial court on January 11, 2017 to enter a
negotiated plea regarding both case numbers. Jordan, in Case No. 2016-CR-3679,
pleaded guilty to the single count of aggravated burglary, and in Case No. 2016-CR-3727
Jordan pleaded guilty to illegal conveyance of a drug of abuse into a detention facility with
-3-
the counts involving heroin and methamphetamine possession being dismissed.
{¶ 4} The plea agreement, in addition to the dismissal of two counts, included the
State’s willingness to defer to the trial court regarding sentencing. The trial court, during
the course of the Crim.R. 11 discussion, informed Jordan that he was eligible to be
sentenced to a term of CCS. The trial court, upon accepting Jordan’s guilty pleas, stated
once again that Jordan could be sentenced to a term of CCS. The trial court ordered the
completion of a pre-sentence investigation report (PSI). There was a discussion
concerning whether a Monday screen would be ordered with Jordan declining such a
screen. This is relevant because a defendant’s Monday participation following a guilty
plea can only occur as a CCS condition.
{¶ 5} Jordan, two weeks later on January 25, 2017, appeared before the trial court
for sentencing. The trial court, in the interim, received the ordered PSI. The PSI
revealed that in 2010 Jordan, as an adult, was convicted in New Mexico of aggravated
battery. The PSI indicates that this crime is consistent with the Ohio offense of felonious
assault, a second degree felony. The trial court concluded, based, it seems, upon the
New Mexico conviction, that Jordan had to be sentenced to a prison term in Case No.
2016-CR-3679 on the aggravated burglary count. The trial court, at the sentencing
hearing, sentenced Jordan to a mandatory five year prison term on the charge of
aggravated burglary in Case No. 2016-CR-3679, and a term of thirty-six months on the
charge of illegal conveyance in Case No. 2016-CR-3727. The trial court ordered the
sentences to be served concurrently. An appeal followed in each case number. The
appeals were consolidated by an order filed on March 8, 2017.
-4-
II. Analysis
{¶ 6} R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) requires the imposition of a mandatory prison term
following a conviction for a first or second degree felony if the defendant has previously
been convicted of a first or second degree felony or an offense from another state which
is the substantial equivalent of a first or second degree felony. Jordan’s PSI identified
the New Mexico aggravated battery as such an offense. Jordan, as set forth in the
State’s brief, was convicted of violating N.M.Stat. 30-3-5(C) which, in pertinent part,
prohibits a person from “inflicting great bodily harm” upon another person. Ohio’s
felonious assault statute, R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), provides, in pertinent part, that “No person
shall knowingly… (1) cause serious physical harm to another… ” The trial court correctly
concluded that N.M.Stat. 30-3-5(C) is substantially equivalent to R.C. 2903.11(A)(1).
Since felonious assault is a second degree felony, Jordan’s sentence in Case No. 2016-
CR-3679 for aggravated burglary required the imposition of a mandatory prison term as
correctly stated by the trial court at the January 25, 2017 sentencing hearing.
{¶ 7} The problem, as conceded by the State, is that Jordan was informed by the
trial court at the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing that he was eligible to be sentenced to a term of
CCS. It is presumed that the trial court and counsel thought that Jordan could be
sentenced to a term of CCS until the discussed New Mexico conviction was revealed by
the PSI.
{¶ 8} Advising a defendant during a plea hearing that he may be sentenced to CCS
when that is not possible makes the plea involuntary. State v. Chessman, 2d Dist.
Greene No. 03CA100, 2006-Ohio-835. A guilty plea that is not voluntary violates due
process and must be reversed. Id. at ¶ 15, citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89
-5-
S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1969). The trial court’s judgment must, accordingly, be
reversed and remanded.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 9} The trial court’s judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
.............
HALL, P.J. and WELBAUM, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Mathias H. Heck, Jr.
Andrew T. French
Gary C. Schaengold
Hon. Dennis J. Adkins