State v. VanWinkle , 2017 Ohio 8194 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as State v. VanWinkle, 2017-Ohio-8194.]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
    STATE OF OHIO                                       :
    :
    Plaintiff-Appellee                          :   C.A. CASE NO. 2017-CA-4
    :
    v.                                                  :   T.C. NO. 16-CR-244
    :
    BENJIE VanWINKLE                                    :   (Criminal Appeal from
    :    Common Pleas Court)
    Defendant-Appellant                         :
    :
    ...........
    OPINION
    Rendered on the ___13th __ day of _____October_____, 2017.
    ...........
    KEVIN TALEBI, Atty. Reg. No. 000069198, 200 N. Main Street, Urbana, Ohio 43078
    Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
    JOHNNA M. SHIA, Atty. Reg. No. 0067685, 130 W. Second Street, Suite 1624, Dayton,
    Ohio 45402
    Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
    .............
    DONOVAN, J.
    {¶ 1} Benjie VanWinkle was originally charged by indictment with 6 counts of
    rape, a felony of the first degree, in violation of R.C. §2907.02 (A)(1)(b)(B), and eleven
    counts of gross sexual imposition, a felony of the third degree, in violation of R.C.
    §2907.05 (A)(4)(C)(2). A plea hearing took place on January 4, 2017, and pursuant to a
    -2-
    plea agreement VanWinkle entered a guilty plea to one count of rape, and in exchange
    the State agreed to dismiss the remaining 16 counts. VanWinkle was designated a Tier
    III offender and sentenced to a minimum of ten years and a maximum term of life
    imprisonment. The trial court ran this term consecutive to VanWinkle’s Miami County
    Case No. 2016-CR-66 pursuant to R.C. §2971.03(E). VanWinkle’s aggregate sentence
    was 30 years and a maximum term of life imprisonment.
    {¶ 2} Appointed counsel for defendant-appellant Benjie VanWinkle submitted an
    appellate brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    (1967), alleging that no arguably meritorious issues exist for appeal. Counsel set forth
    three potential assignments of error: 1) whether the appellant’s plea was made knowingly,
    voluntarily, or intelligently; 2) whether the trial court followed the mandates of Crim.R. 11;
    and 3) whether the trial court erred by placing Appellant under oath during the plea
    colloquy. After a thorough review of the record, this Court agrees that the trial court’s
    proceedings were proper, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    {¶ 3} Under Crim.R. 11(C)(2), a court shall not accept a guilty plea in a felony
    case without first addressing the defendant personally and determining defendant is
    making the plea voluntarily, defendant understands the effect of the plea, and defendant
    understands he is waiving his rights. At the plea hearing the court engaged in a detailed
    plea colloquy that was sufficient to meet the requirements of Ohio Crim.R. 11. VanWinkle
    responded appropriately to all questions asked throughout the plea colloquy and there is
    no evidence in the transcript to indicate any confusion or misunderstanding on his part.
    {¶ 4} Lastly, appellate counsel argues that a potential assignment is whether the
    trial court erred by placing VanWinkle under oath during the plea colloquy. This potential
    -3-
    error was not brought up during the hearing and therefore, under Crim.R. 52 it would need
    to constitute a plain error before a reversal is warranted. Under State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio
    St.3d 21, 27, 
    759 N.E.2d 1240
    (2002), in a criminal case the reviewing court can correct
    a plain error if: 1) an error occurred; 2) the error must be plain, i.e. obvious; and 3) the
    error must have affected “substantial rights” meaning it must have affected the outcome
    of the trial. There is no authority that the defendant being under oath during a plea hearing
    constitutes error nor would it be an obvious error. Furthermore, had VanWinkle not been
    placed under oath there is no indication it would have affected the outcome or his intent
    to plead guilty.
    {¶ 5} Pursuant to the performance of our duty, under Anders v. California, to
    conduct an independent review of the record, we have found no potential assignments of
    error having arguable merit. We conclude that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore,
    the judgement of the trial court is affirmed.
    .............
    HALL, P.J. and TUCKER, J., concur.
    Copies mailed to:
    Kevin Talebi
    Johnna M. Shia
    Benjie D. VanWinkle
    Hon. Nick A. Selvaggio
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2017-CA-4

Citation Numbers: 2017 Ohio 8194

Judges: Donovan

Filed Date: 10/13/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2017