State v. Ytuarte , 2017 Ohio 683 ( 2017 )

[Cite as State v. Ytuarte, 2017-Ohio-683.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2016-06-112
: OPINION
- vs - 2/27/2017
:
BRANDON MICHAEL YTUARTE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2015-09-1466
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee
Fred S. Miller, Baden & Jones Bldg., 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-
appellant
RINGLAND, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Brandon Ytuarte, appeals from his conviction in the Butler
County Court of Common Pleas after he pled guilty to one count of felonious assault. For the
reasons outlined below, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On October 14, 2015, the Butler County Grand Jury returned an indictment
charging appellant with two counts of felonious assault and two counts of aggravated
Butler CA2016-06-112
robbery. Appellant pled not guilty by reason of insanity and also requested a competency
evaluation. The trial court granted appellant's request for a competency evaluation and
subsequently determined that appellant was competent to stand trial in an entry filed March
17, 2016.
{¶ 3} Approximately one month later, on April 19, 2016, appellant entered into a plea
agreement and pled guilty to one count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1),
a second-degree felony. According to the record, the felonious assault charge arose after
appellant caused serious physical harm to the victim, resulting in the loss of his left eye and
fracture of four ribs. After accepting appellant's guilty plea, which the trial court found to be
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, the trial court sentenced appellant to six years
in prison and ordered him to serve a mandatory three-year period of postrelease control.
Appellant now appeals from his conviction, raising a single assignment of error for review:
{¶ 4} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT WHEN IT ACCEPTED HIS GUILTY PLEA WITHOUT INQUIRING INTO HIS
MENTAL STATE.
{¶ 5} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues the trial court erred by
accepting his guilty plea because the trial court failed to inquire into his mental state during
the plea colloquy and his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. We
disagree.
{¶ 6} When a defendant enters a guilty plea in a criminal case, the plea must be
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. State v. Butcher, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-
10-206, 2013-Ohio-3081, ¶ 8. "Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the
plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution."
State v. Payne, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-219, 2016-Ohio-5470, ¶ 7. To ensure that a
defendant's guilty plea is knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made, the trial court must
-2-
Butler CA2016-06-112
engage the defendant in a plea colloquy pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C). Id.{¶ 7} As relevant here, pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2), the trial court may not accept a
defendant's 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.
{¶ 8} A guilty plea is invalid if the trial court does not strictly comply with Crim.R.
11(C)(2)(c), which requires the trial court to verify the defendant understands the
constitutional rights he is waiving. State v. Shavers, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-05-119,
2015-Ohio-1485, ¶ 9. However, the trial court need only substantially comply with the
nonconstitutional notifications required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b). Id. Under the
substantial compliance standard, the appellate court must review the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the defendant's plea and determine whether the defendant
subjectively understood the effects of his plea. State v. Givens, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2014-02-047, 2015-Ohio-361, ¶ 12.
{¶ 9} In the present case, it is undisputed that the trial court strictly complied with the
constitutional requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). In addition, the record reflects that the trial
-3-
Butler CA2016-06-112
court complied with the nonconstitutional notification required by Crim.R.11 (C)(2)(b).
However, on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court failed to substantially comply with
Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by failing to inquire into his mental state and whether his prescription
medications had any effect on his ability to enter a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty
plea.
{¶ 10} After a thorough review of the record, we find the record does not support
appellant's claim. Here, the trial court conducted a methodical Crim.R 11(C) plea colloquy
before appellant entered his guilty plea. This included the trial court asking appellant if he
had read and signed the plea of guilty and jury waiver form after consulting with his trial
counsel. The trial court also inquired into whether appellant was under the influence of
anything that might hinder his understanding.
THE COURT: Are you under the influence of drugs, medication,
alcohol, or anything else that might hinder your understanding of
what's going on today?
MR. Y'TUARTE: No.
The trial court then fully explained the offense appellant was pleading guilty to and the
possible penalties. Thereafter the court stated:
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any questions that you would
like to either ask myself or Ms. Sack about that since I
inadvertently confused you?
MR. Y'TUARTE: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you understand the nature of the
charges that you are pleading guilty to as well as the possible
penalties?
MR. Y'TUARTE: Yes.
THE COURT: I'm going to review this form with you. First of all,
have you seen this plea form before?
MR. Y'TUARTE: Yes.
-4-
Butler CA2016-06-112
THE COURT: Did you read this form?
MR. Y'TUARTE: Yes.
THE COURT: Did you understand it?
MR. Y'TUARTE: Yes.
THE COURT: Did you discuss it with your attorney, Ms. Sack.
MR. Y'TUARTE: Yes.
THE COURT: Did she answer any questions that you may have
had?
MR. Y'TUARTE: Yes.
THE COURT: Did you understand what the pleas form said and
what it meant?
MR. Y'TUARTE: Yes.
THE COURT: Now on the back of this form there are three
signatures; one of the assistant prosecutor, one of your attorney,
and one that purports to be your signature. Is this, in fact, your
signature?
MR. Y'TUARTE: Yes.
***
THE COURT: Are you entering this plea of your own free will?
MR. Y'TUARTE: Yes.
{¶ 11} As reflected in the record, the trial court followed proper procedures to ensure
appellant's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Appellant
affirmatively stated that he was not under the influence of anything that would otherwise
hinder his ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and the consequences of his
plea. Contrary to appellant's argument, this is not a situation that demanded further inquiry.
See, e.g., State v. Mink, 101 Ohio St.3d 350, 2004-Ohio-1580, ¶ 66 ("[a]dditional inquiry is
necessary into a defendant's mental state once a defendant seeking to enter a guilty plea
-5-
Butler CA2016-06-112
has stated that he is under the influence of drugs or medication"). There is nothing in the
record to demonstrate that appellant was not in full possession of his faculties at the plea
hearing. Therefore, finding no error with the trial court's decision finding appellant's guilty
plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, we find his single assignment of error is
without merit and overruled.
{¶ 12} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
-6-