Cleveland v. Jaber , 2016 Ohio 1542 ( 2016 )

[Cite as Cleveland v. Jaber, 2016-Ohio-1542.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
Nos. 103194 and 103195
CITY OF CLEVELAND
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
MERWAN MARK JABER
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cleveland Municipal Court
Housing Division
Case Nos. 2013 CRB 24143 and 2013 CRB 37001
BEFORE: McCormack, J., Jones, A.J., and Laster Mays, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: April 14, 2016
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Marc E. Dann
Grace Mary Doberdruk
William C. Behrens
The Dann Law Firm Co., L.P.A.
P.O. Box 6031040
Cleveland, OH 44103
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara A. Langhenry
Director of Law
Anthony W. Scott
William H. Armstrong, Jr.
Assistant Law Directors
City of Cleveland Law Department
601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 106
Cleveland, OH 44114
TIM McCORMACK, J.:
{¶1} The city of Cleveland filed two complaints against Merwan Mark Jaber for
violations of the housing codes regarding two properties he owned in the city. Jaber
pleaded no contest. The court found him guilty and assessed $99,000 in fines,
significantly in excess of the amount recommended by the prosecutor. Jaber did not file a
direct appeal to challenge his fines. Rather, he filed a motion to vacate his no contest
plea, claiming that he had additional evidence to present to the trial court and also that an
additional hearing should have been held prior to sentencing so that he could provide
mitigation evidence. The court denied Jaber’s motion to vacate the plea, finding no
manifest injustice. On appeal from that judgment, Jaber raises a different claim; he
claims his plea was not knowing or voluntary because the fines imposed exceeded the
recommended amount. As a reviewing court, we do not consider a claim raised for the
first time on appeal. Even if we were to consider this claim, the claim lacks merit, as we
explain in the following.
Substantive Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} The first subject property is located at 9904 Anderson Avenue and the
second at 12805 Grimsby Avenue. In 2013, both properties were cited for numerous
housing codes violations. When Jaber failed to make the mandated repairs, the city filed
two complaints against Jaber in the Cleveland Municipal Court Housing Division. Each
complaint charged Jaber with failing to comply with notices of code violations pursuant to
C.C.O. 3103.25(e), a first-degree misdemeanor. The complaint stated that “[e]ach day
during which noncompliance or a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense”
pursuant to C.C.O. 3103.99(a). The complaint also cited C.C.O. 367.99(a). That
section provides that each violation of the housing code is subject to a maximum fine of
$1,000 dollars.
{¶3} At the plea hearing on April 14, 2015, Jaber appeared pro se. The city’s
counsel represented to the housing court that Jaber and the city had reached a plea
agreement. In exchange for a no-contest plea, the city would recommend a $2,000 fine
for the Grimsby property and a $4,000 fine for the Anderson property.
{¶4} After engaging in a plea colloquy with Jaber advising him of his rights, the
court accepted Jaber’s plea of no contest.
{¶5} After accepting the plea, the court heard from a city inspector, who reported
that there was no improvement on the Anderson property since June 2013, when the first
violation notice was issued. Regarding the Grimsby property, another city inspector
reported that several, but not all, repairs were being carried out on the Grimsby property.
The court heard from a community representative, a “Mrs. Kearsey,” about the state of
disrepair the property was in.
{¶6} A tenant at the Grimsby property also spoke. She and her husband moved
from Florida to Cleveland because her husband was undergoing a triple transplant at the
Cleveland Clinic. She rented the property because it was near the Cleveland Clinic. For
the first two weeks, it had no hot water. Big chunks of the floor were missing in the
kitchen, among other problems. Mrs. Kearsey eventually helped her and her husband
move out of the house and into a safe environment.
{¶7} The court allowed Jaber to speak at length regarding the conditions and
repairs he made on the two properties. After the plea hearing, the court found Jaber
guilty. The court ordered a presentence report for sentencing purposes, to be prepared by
a housing court specialist, Alia Almashni.
{¶8} Almashni prepared two separate presentence reports, one for each property.
For the Grimsby property, the report noted the violations included: deteriorated exterior
walls, broken windows and doors, deteriorated front porch and stairway, cracked
driveway, loose and weak floors, and broken light fixtures. Almashni observed that, as a
result of the property’s dilapidated appearance, there has been a decrease in the value of
the adjacent properties. The report also included a statement from Westown Community
Development Corporation that Jaber “is a slumlord who purchases many properties
without taking care of them and fails to pay property taxes.” The community
organization recommended that “it is time for the Court to restrict him on purchasing any
more properties, until all his properties are brought up to code.”
{¶9} For the Anderson property, Almashni’s report noted areas of neglect including
broken windows, broken gutters and entry door, deteriorated front porch and stairway,
peeling exterior foundation, and leaking garage roof. Almashni observed that the
property was an eyesore to the community in that there was graffiti on the front door and
trash and debris strewn in the yard. Several old trash bags were left outside, putting the
health of neighborhood residents at risk. The condition of the property encouraged
criminal activity and presented a fire hazard. This property reduced real property values
in the neighborhood, rendering an already struggling neighborhood even less appealing to
prospective home buyers.
{¶10} The reports calculated the days of sustained noncompliance for the
Grimsby property to be 86 days, for a maximum fine of $86,000. The Anderson
property’s days of noncompliance numbered 13 days, for a maximum fine of $13,000.
The reports indicated Jaber was self-employed with an annual income of $1,500,000.
Copies of the presentence reports, dated April 15, 2015, were sent to Jaber prior to the
sentencing hearing held on April 28, 2015.
{¶11} At the sentencing hearing, a city inspector reported that the repairs on the
Grimsby property were 90 percent completed on the exteriors but only 60 percent
completed on the interior. A community representative spoke about the detrimental
effect the dilapidated Grimsby property had on the businesses in the neighborhood. The
housing court’s own specialist who had prepared a presentence report informed the court
that the Anderson property was still in a “terrible” condition. Although progress was
made on the Grimsby property, the tenant who rented it for its proximity to the Cleveland
Clinic described the house as inhabitable. Jaber himself spoke regarding the conditions
of the properties and the repairs he made.
{¶12} The court then imposed the maximum fine: $1,000 for each day of
non-compliance for the Grimsby property, which came to $86,000, and $13,000 for 13
days of noncompliance for the Anderson property. Further, the court imposed three years
of community control. The court, however, allowed Jaber to request a substantial
reduction of the fines when he brings the properties into full compliance of the housing
code.
{¶13} Jaber was not represented by counsel either at the April 14, 2015 plea hearing
or at the April 28, 2015 sentencing hearing. However, he obtained counsel within weeks
of his sentencing hearing. Although he now claims on appeal that the trial court imposed
fines well in excess of the recommended amount, his counsel did not file a direct appeal to
challenge that, but instead, filed a motion to vacate his plea on May 22, 2015.
{¶14} The trial court denied his motion to vacate his plea. Jaber appealed from
the court’s decision.1 On appeal, Jaber assigns two errors for our review.
{¶15} Under the first assignment of error, Jaber claims the trial court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to vacate his plea of no contest.
Postsentence Motion to Withdraw: Manifest Injustice
{¶16} Crim.R. 32.1 states: “A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest
may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court
after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to
withdraw his or her plea.”
Jaber filed two separate appeals from the court’s decisions; 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105194
1
relates to the Anderson case and 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103195 relates to the Grimsby case. This
court sua sponte consolidated the two appeals for oral argument and disposition.
{¶17} Unlike a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, which is to be freely and
liberally granted, a postsentence motion must demonstrate the existence of manifest
injustice. State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St. 3d 521, 526, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992). Furthermore, a
defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea after a sentence is imposed must support the
allegation of manifest injustice with specific facts contained in the record or in affidavits
submitted with the motion. State v. Gegia, 157 Ohio App. 3d 112, 2004-Ohio-2124, 809
N.E.2d 673, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.). Whether a defendant has demonstrated a manifest injustice is
addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St. 2d 261,
361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph two of syllabus.
{¶18} “Manifest injustice relates to some fundamental flaw in the proceedings
which results in a miscarriage of justice or is inconsistent with the demands of due
process.” State v. Spivakov, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-32, 2013-Ohio-3343, ¶ 10.
A manifest injustice is alternatively defined as a “clear or openly unjust act.” State ex rel.
Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St. 3d 203, 208, 699 N.E.2d 83 (1998). Under the
manifest-injustice standard, the courts grant a postsentence motion to withdraw a plea only
in extraordinary cases. Smith at 264. This is so because a defendant should not be
encouraged to plead to test the potential punishment and withdraw the plea if the sentence
is unexpectedly severe. State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App. 2d 211, 213, 428 N.E.2d 863
(8th Dist.1980).
{¶19} Jaber claims his plea was not knowing or voluntary because the trial court’s
Crim.R. 11 colloquy was deficient. Specifically, he claims his plea was unknowing
because the trial court did not warn him before accepting his plea that he could be fined in
excess of the prosecutor’s recommendation.
{¶20} First, we note that in his motion to vacate his plea, Jaber did not make this
claim — that his plea was not knowing or voluntary due to an insufficient Crim.R. 11
colloquy.2 As a reviewing court, we do not consider claims raised for the first time on
appeal. See, e.g., State v. Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99044, 2013-Ohio-3725, ¶ 21.
Even if we were to review his claim, the claim is without merit, as we explain below.
{¶21} We recognize that, in order to ensure that a defendant enters a plea
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, the trial court must engage a defendant in a plea
colloquy pursuant to Crim.R. 11. State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St. 3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748,
893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 25-26. The underlying purpose of Crim.R. 11 colloquy is to convey to
the defendant certain information so that he or she can make a voluntary and intelligent
Rather than claiming his plea was unknowing, Jaber stated the following as grounds for his
2
motion to vacate his plea:
Defendant did not consent to any finding of guilty. At the time Defendant made his
plea there was additional evidence that needed to be presented to the Court concerning
the charges against Defendant. Additionally a hearing should have been held so that
Defendant could provide mitigation of damages prior to assessments of fines in excess
of $90,000.
The trial court found Jaber failed to demonstrate manifest injustice. In response to the
grounds cited by Jaber, the court explained that Jaber failed to particularize the nature of the additional
evidence, and that his “consent” was not required before the court could find him guilty based on a
plea of no contest. Regarding a hearing over mitigation of damages, the court explained that Jaber’s
request of relief from the imposed sanctions did not require the court to vacate his plea. The court
stated that Jaber would be permitted later to request a modification of the terms of his community
control and the court would hold a hearing as needed. On appeal, Jaber does not argue these issues
decision in the plea. State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St. 2d 473, 479-480, 423 N.E.2d 115
(1981). Thus, Jaber’s claim that his no-contest plea was not knowing or voluntary
requires our review of the plea colloquy to determine whether the trial court met its
obligation under Crim.R. 11 before accepting his plea. This begs the question of what
the trial court’s duty was under Crim.R. 11 before accepting Jaber’s plea.
{¶22} “A trial court’s obligations in accepting a plea depend upon the level of
offense to which the defendant is pleading.” State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St. 3d 211,
2007-Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677, ¶ 6. Crim.R. 11 sets forth distinct procedures,
depending upon the level of the offense. The plea procedure for a felony case under
Crim.R. 11 is much more elaborate than that for a misdemeanor case. Before accepting a
plea in a felony case, a trial court must inform the defendant that he is waiving his
privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, his right to jury trial, his right to confront
his accusers, and his right of compulsory process of witnesses. Ballard at paragraph one
of the syllabus.
{¶23} The requirement under Crim.R. 11 is much less elaborate for a misdemeanor
offense, which can be either a “serious offense” (defined as an offense the penalty for
which includes confinement for more than six months), or a “petty offense” (defined as a
misdemeanor other than a “serious offense”). 3 Crim.R. 11 has slightly different
requirements for these two levels of misdemeanor. For a “serious offense,” prior to
and, therefore, these issues are waived.
See Crim.R. 2(C) and (D).
3
accepting a guilty or no-contest plea, the trial court shall “address[] the defendant
personally and inform[] the defendant of the effect of the pleas of guilty, no contest, and
not guilty and [determine] that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily.” Crim.R.
11(D). For a “petty offense,” the court “may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no
contest, and shall not accept such pleas without first informing the defendant of the effect
of the plea of guilty, no contest, and not guilty.” Crim.R. 11(E).
{¶24} Here, Jaber was charged with a first-degree misdemeanor offense, which is
subject to a maximum sentence of 180 days. R.C. 2929.24(A)(1). Because the penalty
does not exceed 180 days, the offense is a “petty offense.” Consequently, the court’s
obligation under Crim.R. 11 was only to inform Jaber of the “effect” of his plea. Jones,
116 Ohio St. 3d 211, 2007-Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677, at paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶25} As the Supreme Court of Ohio explained, to advise a defendant the “effect of
the plea” means to advise him or her the appropriate language under Crim.R. 11(B). Id.
at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶26} Crim.R. 11(B) sets forth the effect of guilty or no-contest pleas. The
effect of a no-contest plea is provided in Crim.R. 11(B)(2), which states:
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 such plea or admission shall not be used against the defendant
in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding.
{¶27} Here, the trial court engaged in the following colloquy with Jaber prior to
accepting his plea of no contest:
THE COURT: * * * [D]o you wish to change your plea from not guilty to no
contest?
MR. JABER: Yes, sir.
***
THE COURT: * * * And you understand that when you plead no
contest it’s not an admission of guilt, but is an
admission that the violations did exist. And the court
will make a decision based upon what you say, the
prosecutor and recommendation, and all other
information available to the Court.
So we’ll listen to what the outcome could be on these
and make a decision. You’ll be giving up your right to
a jury trial; right against self-incrimination and your
right for compulsory process.
So do you understand those rights and knowingly and
willingly give them up?
MR. JABER: Yes I do.
THE COURT: And do you wish to move forward without an attorney?
MR. JABER: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. I will accept the plea. * * *
{¶28} Our review of the transcript indicates the trial court fulfilled its obligations
under Crim.R. 11(E) before accepting Jaber’s plea of no contest to a petty offense. The
court advised Jaber that pleading no contest was not an admission of guilt but an
admission of what was alleged in the complaint — his violations of the housing codes.
This advisement was all that was required of the trial court for a defendant pleading no
contest to a petty offense pursuant to Jones, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99044,
2013-Ohio-3725. Although the trial court’s wording slightly deviated from Crim.R.
11(B)(2), substantial compliance is sufficient for a valid plea when nonconstitutional
rights were involved. See, e.g., State v. White, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95098,
2011-Ohio-1562, ¶ 22.
{¶29} The trial court here in fact provided more than what was required of it for a
valid plea regarding a petty offense — it also advised Jaber of the various constitutional
rights he gave up by his plea. In addition, the court ensured that Jaber wished to go
forward without counsel. Based on the record before us, the trial court fulfilled its
obligation under Crim.R. 11.
{¶30} Jaber argues that his plea was not knowing or voluntary because the trial
court imposed fines in excess of what the prosecutor had recommended without warning
him of that possibility before accepting his plea. Jaber cites this court’s decision in State
v. Dunbar, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87317, 2007-Ohio-3261, to support his claim.
{¶31} In Dunbar, this court stated the following regarding the trial court’s
discretion in whether to accept a negotiated plea:
“the law is somewhat less settled in those cases where the trial court appears
to indicate that it accepts the negotiated plea agreement before the court
accepts the defendant’s plea, and then deviates from the recommended
sentence or terms contained within the plea agreement at the time of
sentencing. The analysis in these scenarios turns to due process concerns
over whether the accused was put on [notice] that the trial court might
deviate from the recommended sentence or other terms of the agreement
before the accused entered his plea and whether the accused was given an
opportunity to change or to withdraw his plea when he received this notice.”
Id. at ¶ 115, quoting Warren v. Cromley, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 97-T-0213, 1999 Ohio
App. LEXIS 206, *7-8 (Jan. 29, 1999). Applying Cromley, this court noted that the
record was unclear as to whether the trial court accepted the plea agreement, which had
recommended community control sanctions instead of prison, before accepting Dunbar’s
guilty plea. This court stated that a review of the record in its entirety, however,
indicated that Dunbar had a reasonable expectation that the trial court would adopt the
recommended punishment and impose community controls instead of a prison term. This
court therefore concluded the trial court should not have deviated from the recommended
community control sanctions without forewarning the defendant of the potential
punishment of prison at the plea hearing. The plea was therefore invalid.
{¶32} The present case is distinguishable from Dunbar. The defendant there
pleaded guilty to a felony offense. As the Supreme Court of Ohio noted in Jones, 116
Ohio St. 3d 211, 2007-Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677, the procedure set forth under Crim.R.
11(C) for felony cases is more elaborate than for misdemeanors. The required colloquy
for a felony included advising the defendant the maximum penalty involved. Crim.R.
11(C)(2)(a). In contrast, in a plea to petty offenses, the court’s Crim.R. 11 duty in
ensuring a knowing and voluntary plea is limited to advising the defendant of the “effect
of the plea” set forth in Crim.R. 11(B)(2). Jones. Furthermore, our review of the plea
transcript in its entirety shows that before accepting Jaber’s plea, the court gave no
indication that it would accept the recommended penalty. Dunbar is distinguishable for
these reasons.
{¶33} The complaints against Jaber put him on notice that each day of
noncompliance constituted a separate offense and each offense was subject to a maximum
of $1,000 fine. During the Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the trial court gave no indication and no
hint or promise that it would adopt the recommended fines. Rather, the court advised
Jaber that it would ultimately make a decision based on his statements, the
recommendation, and “all other information” available to the court. The presentence
reports that were sent directly to Jaber clearly set forth the potential maximum fines he
faced. He did not, though, move to vacate his plea prior to sentencing. Given these
circumstances, Jaber fails to demonstrate that his plea was unknowing or involuntary.
Reviewing the trial court’s decision denying the postsentence motion to vacate a plea
under the “manifest injustice” standard, we do not find that the trial court’s decision was
unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St. 3d 217,
450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). The first assignment of error is without merit, even if it had
been properly raised.
{¶34} The second assignment of error states:
The trial court abused its discretion by not vacating the judgment when the
trial court improperly permitted prejudicial testimony at the sentencing from
non-victim Mrs. Kearsey.
{¶35} Jaber claims the trial court should have vacated his plea because it
improperly considered the testimony of the community representative at the sentencing
hearing.
{¶36} “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment of conviction bars a
convicted defendant who was represented by counsel from raising and litigating in any
proceeding, except an appeal from that judgment, any defense or any claimed lack of due
process that was raised or could have been raised by the defendant at the trial, which
resulted in that judgment of conviction, or on an appeal from that judgment.” (Emphasis
added.) State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St. 3d 93, 671 N.E.2d 233 (1996), syllabus.
{¶37} The sentencing issue Jaber raises in this appeal could have been brought on a
direct appeal. We note that, although Jaber was unrepresented at trial, he did obtain
counsel within the 30-day period for direct appeal. Because he was represented during
the period in which the sentencing issue could have been raised on a direct appeal, his
claim of sentencing error is barred by res judicata. See State v. Carnail, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 78143, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 559, *4-5 (Feb. 15, 2001) (res judicata does
not bar a claim where a defendant was unrepresented by counsel during the period in
which the claim could have been raised on direct appeal).
{¶38} We decline to review the purported sentencing error for yet another reason.
In Jaber’s motion to vacate his plea filed by counsel, Jaber did not allege the impropriety
of the community representative’s testimony as a ground for his motion. We decline to
consider this sentencing claim raised for the first time on appeal.
{¶39} Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common
pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________________________
TIM McCORMACK, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., A.J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY (WITH SEPARATE
OPINION ATTACHED);
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY WITH LEAD
OPINION AND CONCURS WITH SEPARATE OPINION OF LARRY A. JONES, SR.,
A.J.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., A.J., CONCURRING IN JUDGMENT ONLY:
{¶40} I concur in judgment only and write separately to discuss what, I believe, the
trial court should have done when accepting Jaber’s plea.
{¶41} I agree with the lead opinion that Jaber has waived the issues he raised on
appeal because he did not raise them at the trial court level. But Jaber was a pro se
defendant. As such, the better course of action would have been for the trial court to
expressly inform Jaber that the court was not bound by the prosecutor’s recommendation
as to the fine it could impose. While such notice was not required, one cannot ignore the
fact that the prosecutor recommended a fine of $6,000 and the court imposed a fine of
$99,000, a difference of $93,000.
{¶42} There is little doubt that Jaber’s properties were in inexcusable and
deplorable condition and contributed to the scourge of blight that has beset the city of
Cleveland. Jaber’s $1.5 million annual income may allow him to pay the fine with ease;
moreover, the court offered to revisit the fine once repairs were completed. But what
about the average property owner? While the trial court’s harsh penalty may serve to
deter prospective “slumlords,” and the trial court was within its discretion in deviating
from the recommended fine, I maintain that justice would have been better served had the
trial court told Jaber at the plea hearing that it was not bound by the prosecutor’s
recommendation.