State v. Eckler , 2019 Ohio 4828 ( 2019 )

[Cite as State v. Eckler, 2019-Ohio-4828.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2019-02-035
: OPINION
- vs - 11/25/2019
:
ROSS A. ECKLER, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2018-10-1793
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, John C. Heinkel, Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellee
Christopher P. Frederick, 300 High Street, Suite 550, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for appellant
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Ross Eckler, appeals a decision of the Butler County Court of
Common Pleas to accept his guilty pleas for aggravated vehicular assault and operating a
vehicle under the influence ("OVI").
{¶ 2} While under the influence of multiple drugs, Eckler drove his car across the
center lane and hit another vehicle head-on. The crash caused serious physical harm to an
Butler CA2019-02-035
occupant of the other car, and Eckler was charged with aggravated vehicular assault, OVI,
and failure to drive on the right half of the roadway. Eckler initially pled not guilty to the
charges, but later pled guilty to aggravated vehicular assault and OVI in exchange for the
stated dismissing the third charge.
{¶ 3} During the plea hearing, Eckler was informed that the trial court would impose a
mandatory prison sentence, with a maximum term of 60 months, for the aggravated assault
charge. The trial court also indicated that Eckler could receive credit toward his sentence for
employment or educational programming while in prison. Neither the state nor Eckler
questioned the trial court regarding the possibility of Eckler receiving credit.
{¶ 4} At a later sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Eckler to 42 months for
the aggravated vehicular assault charge, indicating that the sentence was mandatory and
thus not eligible for judicial release or credit for participation in prison programs. Eckler did
not question or object to the trial court's statement. However, Eckler now appeals the trial
court's acceptance of his guilty plea, raising the following assignment of error:
{¶ 5} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MR. ECKLER IN ITS
ACCEPTANCE OF A GUILTY PLEA WHICH WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND
VOLUNTARY, IN VIOLATION OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE
I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶ 6} Eckler argues in his sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in
accepting his guilty plea.
{¶ 7} A defendant's plea in a criminal case is invalid if not made knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily. State v. Ackley, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2013-04-010, 2014-
Ohio-876, ¶ 8. Crim.R. 11(C)(2) governs the process a trial court must follow to ensure that a
guilty plea to a felony charge is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. State v. Brune, 12th Dist.
-2-
Butler CA2019-02-035
Butler No. CA2014-02-058, 2014-Ohio-5742,¶ 8.
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 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.
Crim.R. 11(C)(a) thru (c).
{¶ 8} A guilty plea is invalid if the trial court does not strictly comply with Crim.R.
11(C)(2)(c), which requires the court to verify the defendant understands the constitutional
rights that he is waiving. Ackley, 2014-Ohio-876 at ¶ 9. However, a court need only
substantially comply with the nonconstitutional notifications required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)
and (b). Id. Upon review, an appellate court must consider the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the defendant's plea and determine whether he or she subjectively understood
the effects of the plea. State v. Givens, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-02-047, 2015-Ohio-
361, ¶ 12.
{¶ 9} Even if this court were to find the trial court did not substantially comply with
Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b), we must make a further determination as to whether the trial
-3-
Butler CA2019-02-035
court at least partially complied. Id. at ¶ 13. If the trial court wholly failed to comply, the plea
must be vacated. Id. If the trial court partially complied, the plea may be vacated only if the
defendant demonstrates prejudicial effect. State v. Coffman, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-
01-014, 2015-Ohio-2990. Prejudicial effect in this context means that the plea would not
otherwise have been entered. State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 15.
{¶ 10} Eckler does not assert a challenge to the trial court's compliance with the
constitutional requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). Instead, Eckler argues that the trial court
failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b) because it gave him misinformation
regarding the possibility of earning credit toward his sentence by participating in various
prison programs. While the trial court incorrectly stated that Eckler may have been eligible to
earn credit, we find that the trial court nonetheless partially complied with Crim.R. 11 and
Eckler can show no prejudicial effect of the misinformation.
{¶ 11} Ohio law is clear that a trial court must inform a defendant of the maximum
sentence he or she faces before accepting a guilty plea. State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239,
2008-Ohio-3748. However, there is no requirement that a defendant understand the
minimum penalty involved, nor is there is a requirement that a trial court notify a defendant of
the possibility of earned credit toward his or her prison sentence. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a).
{¶ 12} The trial court expressly informed Eckler of the maximum sentence he was
facing, up to 60 months in prison, and Eckler did not question the trial court on the issue of
what his maximum sentence would be. Rather, Eckler expressed his understanding of the
maximum sentence multiple times, which would include an inherent understanding that the
mandatory nature of Eckler's sentence also made him ineligible for community control
sanctions, early judicial release, and earned credit. See State v. Harding, 4th Dist. Gallia No.
16CA21, 2018-Ohio-942, ¶ 24.
{¶ 13} Additionally, Eckler has not established the requisite prejudice to invalidate his
-4-
Butler CA2019-02-035
guilty plea because we cannot conclude from the record that he would not have entered a
guilty plea had the trial court taken greater care in advising him during the plea hearing about
his ineligibility for earned credit. Rather, the record reflects that Eckler subjectively
understood the nature of his sentence and the fact that he would be required to serve a
mandatory prison term, especially given the fact that he did not object when the trial court
properly indicated during sentencing that Eckler was ineligible for earned credit. Had Eckler's
plea been predicated upon his eligibility for earned credit, he would have indicated as much
upon the trial court's correct statement of the law during sentencing.
{¶ 14} Eckler relies upon this court's holding in State v. Hendrix, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2012-12-265, 2013-Ohio-4978, in which we reversed a decision of the trial court to accept
a guilty plea where the court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) because it misinformed
the defendant that the court could impose community control, grant judicial release, and
award credit toward the defendant's sentence. However, the facts of that case differ from the
case sub judice because the possibility of the trial court imposing community control negated
the mandatory nature of Hendrix's sentence. Here, the trial court never intimated that Eckler
was eligible for community control, and instead, expressly told Eckler that he was ineligible
for community control given his mandatory sentence. Moreover, as noted earlier, Crim.R.
11(C)(2)(a) requires a trial court to advise the defendant of his or her ineligibility for
community control, but does not require any notification regarding earned credit. As such,
Hendrix is factually distinguishable and is not controlling.
{¶ 15} After a full review of the record, we find that the Eckler's plea was properly
accepted by the trial court and that Eckler was not prejudiced by the trial court's statement at
the plea hearing that he may be eligible for earned credit. Accordingly, Eckler's assignment
of error is overruled.
-5-
Butler CA2019-02-035
{¶ 16} Judgment affirmed.
HENDRICKSON, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur.
-6-