State v. White ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. White, 2022-Ohio-2411.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 110949
v. :
DONALD REED WHITE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 14, 2022
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-20-654486-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Sean D. Drake and Kristen Hatcher,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Lydia Evelyn Spragin, for appellant.
LISA B. FORBES, J.:
Donald Reed White (“White”) appeals the trial court’s ordering
forfeiture of three cell phones, a firearm, a scale, and $520 in connection with
White’s convictions for drug possession, having weapons while under disability, and
drug trafficking. After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm
the trial court’s decision.
I. Facts and Procedural History
On September 1, 2021, White pled guilty to the following charges:
three counts of drug possession in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a fifth-degree felony,
with forfeiture of three cell phones, a scale, and $520; having weapons while under
disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), a third-degree felony, with forfeiture of
a firearm; and drug trafficking in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a fourth-degree
felony, with forfeiture of a scale and $520.
At the plea hearing, the court meticulously reviewed with White, his
counsel, and the prosecutor that, by pleading guilty, White would be agreeing to
forfeit three cell phones a firearm, a scale, and $520 to the “City of Cleveland,
Cleveland Division of Police.”
THE COURT: It’s been further suggested that you would forfeit any
and all interest you may have in three cell phones, a Springfield Armory
XD Elite firearm, $520 in United States currency, and a digital scale,
all to be forfeited to the Cleveland Police Department, do you
understand?
WHITE: Correct.
THE COURT: Any question at all, sir, you would like to ask me?
WHITE: No, your Honor.
The court conducted a Crim.R. 11(C) hearing prior to accepting
White’s guilty plea to the five aforementioned felonies. The court found that White
“knowingly, voluntarily, and with full understanding of his rights entered his change
of plea.” The court accepted the plea, made a finding of guilt, and ordered “the
forfeiture earlier specified.”
The September 1, 2021 journal entry memorializing this plea states,
in part, that White is to “forfeit to Cleveland Police Department: 3 cell phones;
Springfield Armory XD elite firearm serial # BY327852; $520.00 U.S. currency;
digital scale.”
On October 13, 2021, the court sentenced White to an aggregate of
three years in prison. The sentencing journal entry reiterates that White is to “forfeit
to Cleveland Police Department: 3 cell phones; Springfield Armory XD elite firearm
serial # BY327852; $520.00 U.S. currency; digital scale.”
White now appeals, raising verbatim, two assignments of error for our
review:
The trial court improperly imposed forfeiture on each count in the
indictment upon Mr. White in imposing the sentence herein.
The trial court denied, impeded, or violated Mr. White’s due process
rights under the U.S. Constitution and the S[t]ate of Ohio §§ 1, 2, 16,
and 19.
II. Law and Analysis
It is well settled that a “guilty plea is a complete admission of the
defendant’s guilt. * * * When a defendant enters a plea of guilty, he waives all
appealable errors that might have occurred unless the errors precluded the
defendant from entering a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea.” State v.
Korecky, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108328, 2020-Ohio-797, ¶ 16.
In the case at hand, White does not claim that his plea was not
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Rather, White poses the following
question: “What facts/evidence has the State introduced that would [sic] firearms,
the money, or any of the property the State desires to be forfeited are ‘contraband’
or ‘proceeds’” as contemplated by R.C. 2981.02? However, because White pled
guilty to offenses including detailed forfeiture specifications, the state need not
produce evidence to support the elements of the offenses and specifications. See
State v. Eppinger, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95685, 2011-Ohio-2404, ¶ 9 (“[W]hen
the defendant enters a plea agreement calling for the forfeiture of seized property,
adherence to the statutory procedures [is] unnecessary.”); State v. Gladden, 86 Ohio
App.3d 287, 289, 620 N.E.2d 947 (1th Dist.1993) (“[I]t cannot be said that
appellant’s due process rights were violated because by entering into the plea
agreement appellant clearly had notice of and agreed to the forfeiture of hid
property.”).
White next argues that “the State did not seek a forfeiture order
pertaining to the funds seized from Mr. White at the time of the offenses by including
a forfeiture specification * * *.” This is simply not true. As noted earlier in this
opinion, White’s indictment included forfeiture specifications for the three cell
phones, a firearm, a scale, and $520. Additionally, White’s guilty plea, both on the
record in open court and as reflected in the court’s plea and sentencing journal
entries, included an order to forfeit these exact items.
Accordingly, White’s assignments of error are overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from 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. The defendant’s
conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case
remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
LISA B. FORBES, JUDGE
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J., and
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., CONCUR