State v. Gibson , 2018 Ohio 4013 ( 2018 )

[Cite as State v. Gibson, 2018-Ohio-4013.]
COURT OF APPEALS
MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs-
Case No. CT2017-0094
GREGORY L. GIBSON, JR.
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Muskingum County Court
of Common Pleas, Case No. CR2017-0288
JUDGMENT: Vacated and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 1, 2018
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
D. MICHAEL HADDOX ERIC J. ALLEN
Prosecuting Attorney The Law Offices of Eric J. Allen, Ltd.
Muskingum County, Ohio 4605 Morse Rd., Suite 201
Gahanna, Ohio 43230
By: GERALD V. ANDERSON II
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Muskingum County, Ohio
27 North Fifth St., P.O. Box 189
Zanesville, Ohio 43702-0189
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Gregory L. Gibson appeals his conviction and
sentence entered by the Muskingum County Court of Common Pleas, on one count of
permitting drug abuse with a forfeiture specification, in violation of R.C. 2925.13(A) and
2941.1417, a felony of the fifth degree, after the trial court found him guilty following its
acceptance of his no contest plea. Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} A confidential informant working with detectives from the Central Ohio Drug
Enforcement Task Force made a number of controlled buys from an individual by the
name of Gregory Butcher and his organization. On August 29, 2016, the confidential
informant arranged a controlled buy of a quarter-ounce of cocaine from Butcher. The
confidential informant approached the driver’s side of a 2002 Cadillac Escalade, which
was titled in Appellant’s name, and completed a hand-to-hand transaction with Butcher.
Appellant was one of three passengers in the Escalade at the time of the transaction.
{¶3} The confidential informant made additional controlled buys from Butcher as
well as other individuals. These transactions were made from Appellant’s Escalade.
Many of the transactions were conducted close to Appellant’s residence. On August 31,
2016, immediately prior to one of the controlled buys, detectives observed Butcher pull
up in the Escalade in front of Appellant’s residence. Appellant was on the porch and
Butcher spoke to him through the driver’s window. After the conversation, Butcher drove
away in the Escalade and conducted a transaction with the confidential informant.
{¶4} Jayana Pantaleo, Butcher’s former girlfriend, advised detectives Butcher
used the Escalade in his drug trade. Butcher had previously titled the vehicle in another
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 3
girlfriend’s name as well as in the name of the girlfriend of a member of his organization.
The Escalade was subsequently titled in Appellant’s name. Butcher had asked Pantaleo
to put the title in her name, but she refused to do so.
{¶5} On August 23, 2017, the Muskingum County Grand Jury indicted Appellant
on one count of permitting drug abuse with a forfeiture specification, in violation of R.C.
2925.13(A) and 2941.1417, a felony of the fifth degree.1 Appellant appeared before the
trial court for arraignment on September 1, 2017, and entered a plea of not guilty to the
Indictment. On September 19, 2017, Appellant withdrew his former plea of not guilty and
entered a plea of no contest to the charge. The trial court accepted Appellant’s no contest
plea and found him guilty as charged. The trial court ordered a pre-sentence
investigation. On November 6, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to one year of
community control. The trial court also ordered the 2002 Cadillac Escalade be forfeited.
{¶6} Appellant raises the following assignment of error:
I. APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THE
COURT ACCEPTED A PLEA OF NO CONTEST WITHOUT INFORMING
THE DEFENDANT CONCERNING THE EFFECT OF A PLEAS [SIC] OF
NO CONTEST.
I.
1Two prior indictments were dismissed, one due to a technical error and the other in an
effort to protect a confidential informant.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 4
{¶7} Crim.R. 11(B) explains the effect of a no contest plea and provides, in
relevant part:
With reference to the offense or offenses to which the plea is entered:
***
(2) The plea of no contest is not an admission of defendant's guilt,
but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment,
information, or complaint, and the plea or admission shall not be used
against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding.
{¶8} Pursuant to Crim. R. 11, a trial court must follow distinct procedures in
accepting a plea, with the procedures varying based upon whether the offense involved
is a misdemeanor that is a petty offense, a misdemeanor that is a serious offense, or a
felony. State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St. 3d 211, 877 N.E.2d 677, 2007-Ohio-6093, ¶ 11.
Appellant pled no contest to a fifth degree felony. Accordingly, the trial court was required
to follow the procedure set forth in Crim. R. 11(C)(2), which 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
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 5
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} “Pursuant to Crim. R. 11(C), felony defendants are entitled to be informed
of various constitutional and non-constitutional rights, prior to entering a plea.” State v.
Griggs, 103 Ohio St. 3d 85, 2004–Ohio–4415, 814 N.E.2d 51, ¶ 6. Among the non-
constitutional rights, Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(b) requires the trial court to inform the defendant
of the effect of his guilty or no-contest plea and to determine whether he understands that
effect. State v. Jones, supra at ¶ 12; Griggs, supra at ¶ 10–12.
{¶10} Before accepting Appellant's guilty plea, the trial court engaged in the
following colloquy with him:
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 6
THE COURT: You understand you’re offering to plead guilty to one
count, that count is permitting drug abuse, and that’s a felony of the fifth
degree?
THE DEFENDANT: Say –
THE COURT: You’re pleading no contest.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I will – I will make that mistake again. Just correct me
when I do it.
THE DEFENDANT: That’s fine.
THE COURT: And you understand that offense, being a felony of the
fifth degree, carries a possible penalty of six to 12 months of imprisonment
in one-month increments, and a fine of up to $2500?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You also understand there’s a forfeiture specification
in regards to the vehicle contained in the indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You also understand that in addition to any type of jail
or prison sentence, the Court can impose what are known as financial
sanctions against you, and that can include court costs, fines, restitution,
that sort of thing?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
***
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 7
THE COURT: You understand that if you went to prison in this matter
it’s optional, but upon your release from prison the Adult Parole Authority
could place you upon what is known as post-release control, and that could
be for a period of up to three years?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You understand that while on post-release control, you
would be subject to a variety of rules and regulations? Should you fail to
follow those rules and regulations, you could be sent back to prison for a
period of up to nine months for each rule violation you may commit. Total
amount of time you could be sent back to prison would be equal to one-half
of your original prison sentence?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You also understand that if you commit a new felony
while on post-release control, in addition to any sentence you receive for
that new felony, additional time could be added to that sentence in the form
of the time you have left on post-release control, or one year, whichever’s
greater?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You also understand the Court could place you upon
what is known as community control, and that could be for a period of up to
five years?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 8
THE COURT: You understand that while on community control,
you’d be subject to a variety of rules and regulations. Should you fail to
follow those rules and regulations, the Court could place you upon more
severe sanctions of community control or could send you to prison for any
period of time it could have originally?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You understand what you’ve been charged with and
any possible defenses you may have to those charges?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
***
THE COURT: You understand that by pleading no contest you are
giving up your right to a jury trial?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You also understand that you are giving up your right
to a trial to the Court without a jury; be a Bench trial?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: You also understand you are giving up your right to
confront and have your attorney cross-examine anybody who testifies
against you?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You also understand you are giving up your right to
use the power of the Court to subpoena and compel anybody you wanted
to be here * * * and testify on your behalf?
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 9
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And do you also understand that you are giving up
your right at that trial not to take the witness stand, and the fact that you do
not testify could not be used against you in any way?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You also understand you are giving up your right to
require the Prosecutor to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of
every element of the offense against you?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You also understand you have a right to appeal your
case within 30 days of sentencing, but by pleading no contest you severely
limit the chances of any appeal being successful?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
Transcript of September 19, 2017 Change of Plea Hearing at 13-18.
{¶11} As revealed through the exchange during the Crim. R. 11 colloquy, the trial
court advised Appellant of his constitutional rights, the potential penalties for the offense,
and the possibility of post-release control. The record demonstrates the trial court had a
meaningful dialogue with Appellant, fully apprising him of the constitutional rights he was
waiving. However, as Appellant asserts, the trial court completely failed to advise him of
the effect of a no contest plea, as required by Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(b).
{¶12} The right to be informed a no contest plea is a not an admission of guilt, but
is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment is non-constitutional;
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 10
therefore, the trial court’s failure to inform a defendant of the effect of a no contest plea is
subject to review under a standard of substantial compliance. See, State v. Nero, 56 Ohio
St.3d 106, 108, 564 N.E.2d 474. While the failure to adequately inform a defendant of
his constitutional rights would invalidate a no contest plea under a presumption it was
entered involuntarily and unknowingly, the failure to substantially comply with non-
constitutional rights will not invalidate a plea unless the defendant thereby suffered
prejudice. See, Id. The test for prejudice is “whether the plea would have otherwise been
made.” Id.
{¶13} We find not only did the trial court fail to substantially comply with Crim. R.
11(C)(2)(b), but the trial court also failed to comply at all with the rule. The trial court did
not inform Appellant of the effect of his no contest plea. We find a trial court is required
to substantially comply with all three subsections of Crim. R. 11(C)(2). Because the trial
court’s failure to do so invalidates Appellant’s plea, we need not reach the issue of
whether Appellant suffered prejudice.
{¶14} Appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained.
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 11
{¶15} Appellant’s conviction and sentence are vacated and the matter remanded
for further proceedings consistent with the law and this Opinion.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Baldwin, J. and
Wise, Earle, J. concur
Muskingum County, Case No. CT2017-0094 12