State v. Grier ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Grier, 2011-Ohio-902.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 3-10-09
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
WILLIE GRIER, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 08-CR-0093
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 28, 2011
APPEARANCES:
Stanlee E. Culbreath for Appellant
Clifford J. Murphy for Appellee
Case No. 3-10-09
PRESTON, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Willie D. Grier (hereinafter “Grier”), appeals the
judgment of conviction and sentence entered against him by the Crawford County
Court of Common Pleas, which found him guilty of possession of drugs and
sentenced him to two years imprisonment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On June 11, 2008, Grier was indicted by the Crawford County Grand
Jury on one count of possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(4)(c), a
felony of the third degree. On June 16, 2008, Grier entered a plea of not guilty to
the charge in the indictment.
{¶3} On June 17, 2009, as part of a negotiated plea agreement, a hearing
was conducted during which time Grier withdrew his previously entered not guilty
plea and entered a plea of guilty to the charge in the indictment. According to the
terms of the plea agreement, Grier agreed to plead guilty to the charge in the
indictment, while the State agreed to recommend a mandatory one year prison
term at sentencing. The trial court found Grier guilty, continued the matter for
sentencing, ordered that a pre-sentence investigation (“PSI”) be conducted, and
ordered that Grier’s bond be continued until sentencing.
{¶4} On August 17, 2009, a sentencing hearing was held; however, Grier
failed to appear. Consequently, a warrant was issued for Grier’s arrest.
-2-
Case No. 3-10-09
{¶5} On February 22, 2010, Grier was arrested in Richland County for
possession of drugs and was held on Crawford County’s detainer. On March 1,
2010, Grier was conveyed to the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas,
pursuant to the detainer, for purposes of sentencing. The State advised Grier, both
off and on the record, that it would not honor the one year negotiated prison term
based on Grier’s flight. The State agreed to allow Grier to withdraw his guilty
plea, and the trial court advised Grier of his right to withdraw his guilty plea based
on the State’s actions. Nevertheless, Grier refused to withdraw his guilty plea, and
ultimately, the trial court sentenced Grier to two years imprisonment.
{¶6} Grier now appeals pro se raising one assignment of error.
Additionally, on September 24, 2010, we granted Grier’s appellate counsel leave
to file a supplemental appellate brief, which he filed on November 22, 2010. As a
result, Grier’s appellate counsel raises five supplemental assignments of error. For
ease of our discussion, because they are the same assignments of error, we elect to
address Grier’s pro se assignment of error and Grier’s appellate counsel’s first
assignment of error together.
PRO SE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE
APPELLANT, BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE
MANDATES OF RULE 11 OF THE OHIO RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THAT THE TRIAL COURT
DID NOT HOLD A CRIMINAL RULE 11, GUILTY PLEA
-3-
Case No. 3-10-09
HEARING. THUS, VIOLATING APPELLANT’S 14TH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS CLAUSE.
SUPPLEMENTAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE
APPELLANT, BY FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE
MANDATES OF RULE 11 OF THE OHIO RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THAT THE TRIAL COURT
DID NOT HOLD A CRIMINAL RULE 11, GUILTY PLEA
HEARING. THUS, VIOLATING APPELLANT’S 14TH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS CLAUSE [SIC].
{¶7} In his only pro se assignment of error, Grier argues that the trial court
failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 during his change of plea hearing on June 15,
2009. In response, the State claims that the trial court did comply with Crim.R.
11, and while Grier’s appellate counsel presents the same assignment of error in
his supplemental brief, Grier’s appellate counsel agrees with the State that the trial
court did properly comply with Crim.R. 11.
{¶8} Before accepting a guilty plea, Crim.R. 11 requires the trial court to
personally address a defendant to determine if the plea is voluntary, and that the
defendant understands both the plea itself as well as the rights waived by pleading
guilty. Crim.R. 11(C)(2). Specifically, Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) provides that the duty
of the court extends to:
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
-4-
Case No. 3-10-09
beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant
cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.
“Although using the exact language of Crim.R. 11 is not required, the court must
advise the defendant that a plea of guilty waives each of these rights.” State v.
Graham, 3rd Dist. No. 14-04-28, 2005-Ohio-1431, ¶8, citing State v. Ballard
(1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115. In reviewing the sufficiency of a
Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the Court will apply different standards depending on
whether the violation stemmed from a failure to inform a defendant of the
constitutional rights delineated in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) or whether the failure was
to comply with the other requirements of Crim.R. 11(C). Id. at ¶¶8-9.
{¶9} With regard to the constitutional rights enumerated in Crim.R. 11, “a
guilty plea is constitutionally infirm when the defendant is not informed in a
reasonable manner at the time of entering his guilty plea of his rights to a trial by
jury and to confront his accusers, and his privilege against self-incrimination, and
his right of compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his behalf.” Ballard, 66
Ohio St.2d at 478. This rule does not extend to require a court to use the exact
language of Crim.R. 11, but the court must advise the defendant of each right
waived by the guilty plea. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d at 480.
{¶10} With regard to the non-constitutional requirements of Crim.R. 11,
this Court looks at whether the trial court substantially complied with the
requirements of Crim.R. 11 and will not reverse unless prejudice occurred. State
-5-
Case No. 3-10-09
v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶¶14-17; State v.
Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509, 881 N.E.2d 1224, ¶¶19-23; State v.
Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85, 2004-Ohio-4415, 814 N.E.2d 51, ¶12. “Substantial
compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances the defendant
subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving.”
State v. Moore, 3d Dist. Nos. 6-07-03, 6-07-04, 2007-Ohio-6018, ¶12. See, also,
Sarkozy, 2008-Ohio-509, at ¶20, quoting Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4115, at ¶12. “‘The
test for prejudice is ‘whether the plea would have otherwise been made.’”
Sarkozy, 2008-Ohio-509, at ¶20, quoting Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4415, at ¶12.
{¶11} In particular, in his pro se appellate brief Grier argues that, since
there is no record of his change of plea hearing evidencing the trial court’s
Crim.R. 11 compliance, we must find that he was consequently “not afforded his
constitutional right to Due Process because he was never informed of his
constitutional rights by the trial court judge personally as required by Criminal
Rule 11 (C)(2)(a), (b), and (c).” (Pro Se Appellate Brief at 6). However, the
appellant is responsible for obtaining and timely delivering to the Clerk of the trial
court a complete transcript of the proceedings. App.R. 9. At the time Grier filed
his pro se brief, he had failed to file a transcript of the change of plea hearing,
thus, without that transcript, we would have to presume regularity occurred during
those proceedings. State v. Helton, 3d Dist. No. 6-08-01, 2008-Ohio-1146, ¶19,
-6-
Case No. 3-10-09
citing App.R. 9; Loc.R. 5; State v. Moore, 3d Dist. No. 14-06-43, 2007-Ohio-
1763, ¶8, citing State v. Miyamoto, 3d Dist. No. 14-05-43, 2006-Ohio-1776, ¶11,
quoting Hartt v. Munobe (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 3, 7, 615 N.E.2d 617.
{¶12} Nevertheless, this Court allowed Grier’s appellate counsel to file a
supplemental brief and to supplement the record. Along with his appellate brief,
Grier’s appellate counsel filed transcripts of the change of plea and sentencing
hearing. Therefore, contrary to Grier’s claims, there is a record of the trial court’s
Crim.R. 11 colloquy to Grier at the change of plea hearing. Furthermore, after
review of the transcript, we find that the trial court fully complied with the
mandates of Crim.R. 11. Throughout the Crim.R. 11(C) inquiry, the trial court
repeatedly asked Grier if he understood what he was being told and whether he
had any questions. (June 17, 2009 Tr. at 4-14). Grier repeatedly stated that he
understood and had no questions. (Id.). The trial court also allowed Grier time to
consult with his trial counsel with any additional questions. (Id.). After being
fully informed of the rights he was forgoing by pleading guilty and the possible
penalties involved, Grier entered his plea of guilty to the sole count in the
indictment pursuant to a written plea agreement. (Id. at 12). In addition, the
written plea agreement also provided Grier with notice of his rights and the
possible penalties involved. (Doc. No. 40). As a result, we find Grier’s argument
lacks merit.
-7-
Case No. 3-10-09
{¶13} Grier’s pro se assignment of error and his first supplemental
assignment of error are, therefore, overruled.
SUPPLEMENTAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE AND
DETRIMENT OF THE APPELLANT, BY OVERRULING
DEFENSE ATTORNEY’S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT
WAS PARTY TO A PLEA AGREEMENT THAT WAS
ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
SUPPLEMENTAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III
THAT DEFENDANT’S VOLUNTARY ABSENCE AND NON-
APPEARANCE AT THE AUGUST 17, 2009 HEARING DID
NOT VIOLATE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HIS
JUNE 17, 2009 CONTRACT PLEA AGREEMENT WITH THE
STATE OF OHIO SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE STATE OF
OHIO AND/OR THE TRIAL COURT TO RESCIND
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S OTHERWISE VALID JUNE
17, 2009 CONTRACT PLEA AGREEMENT, ALL TO
DEFENDANT’S DETRIMENT.
{¶14} In his second and third supplemental assignments of error, Grier’s
appellate counsel claims that the trial court erred by failing to accept the original
plea agreement entered into between Grier and the State on June 17, 2009, on the
basis that Grier had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement when he
failed to appear at the sentencing hearing on August 17, 2009.
{¶15} At the March 1, 2010 sentencing hearing, the State informed the trial
court that it had entered into a plea agreement with Grier, in which it had promised
to recommend only a mandatory one year prison term in exchange for Grier’s
-8-
Case No. 3-10-09
guilty plea. (Mar. 1, 2010 Tr. at 3). Despite this agreement, the State told the trial
court that it no longer wished to proceed with the terms of the plea agreement
since it believed that Grier had violated the agreement when he had failed to show
up for the original sentencing hearing scheduled for August 17, 2009. (Id. at 3-4).
In response, Grier’s trial counsel argued that Grier had not violated the terms of
the agreement by failing to appear for sentencing back in 2009 and requested that
the trial court enforce the terms of the agreement as it had been signed and agreed
to by the parties. (Id. at 4-5).
{¶16} The trial court disagreed with Grier’s trial counsel and found that it
was reasonable for the State to withdraw from the original plea agreement since
Grier had failed to appear for the 2009 sentencing. (Id. at 5). In light of its ruling,
the trial court went on to state: “[a]nd that’s my ruling, the State is not bound to
the plea agreement which means if you do want to proceed to sentencing today,
you do so without the State’s recommendation of one year. Or I guess you have
the opportunity to attempt to withdraw your plea if you want to do that.” (Id.).
Then, the trial court allowed Grier time to consult with his trial counsel regarding
the options available to him, and after talking to his trial counsel, Grier said that he
still wished to go forward with the sentencing and not withdraw his previously
tendered guilty plea. (Id. at 6). Thereafter, with respect to its sentencing
recommendation, the State recommended a mandatory prison term of no less than
-9-
Case No. 3-10-09
two years, and after allowing Grier and his trial counsel to make their comments,
the trial court imposed a mandatory prison term of two years. (Id. at 10-12).1
{¶17} On appeal, Grier’s appellate counsel argues that the trial court erred
when it found that Grier had breached the plea agreement by failing to appear for
the original sentencing hearing in 2009, and, that as a result, the State was no
longer bound to the terms of the plea agreement. We disagree.
{¶18} A plea agreement is a contract between the prosecution and a
criminal defendant, and thus, is governed by the principles of contract law. State
v. Milligan, 3d Dist. No. 16-08-04, 2008-Ohio-4509, ¶16, citing State v. Adkins,
161 Ohio App.3d 114, 2005-Ohio-2577, 829 N.E.2d 729, ¶7 (citations omitted).
Accordingly, if one side breaches the agreement, then the other side is entitled to
either rescission or specific performance of the plea agreement. State v. Walker,
6th Dist. No. L-05-1207, 2006-Ohio-2929, ¶13, citing Santobello v. New York
(1971), 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427. Moreover, “Ohio courts have
generally held that if a defendant fails to appear at the sentencing hearing, the
defendant is in breach of any plea agreement.” Adkins, 2005-Ohio-2577, at ¶8.
See, also, State v. Bonner, 3d Dist. Nos. 4-04-05, 4-04-06, 4-04-07, 2004-Ohio-
6043, ¶17. The appearance of a defendant at a scheduled hearing date is “an
1
During the sentencing hearing, Grier’s trial counsel noted his objection to the trial court’s decision
overruling his argument that Grier had not violated the plea agreement and that the State was still bound to
the terms of the plea agreement. (Mar. 1, 2010 Tr. at 14).
-10-
Case No. 3-10-09
implied covenant in any plea agreement.” Id. at ¶9, citing State v. Hess (Dec. 24,
1991), 4th Dist. No. 515 (Harsha, J., concurring). In Milligan, with facts almost
identical to the case sub judice, this Court explicitly held that when the defendant
failed to appear for a scheduled sentencing hearing, he had violated the terms of
his plea agreement with the prosecution, and thus, the prosecution was free to
recommend a prison term, even though it had originally agreed to only
recommend community control or an OR bond in the original plea agreement.
2008-Ohio-4509, at ¶¶14-19.
{¶19} Here, Grier did not appear at the sentencing hearing scheduled for
August 17, 2009. As a result, the trial court issued a warrant for Grier’s arrest, and
Grier remained absent for several months, until his arrest in Richland County on
February 22, 2010. Accordingly, we find that Grier violated his plea agreement
with the prosecution when he failed to appear at the original sentencing hearing.
Because Grier violated the plea agreement, the prosecution was free to rescind the
plea agreement and to no longer be bound to the terms of the original plea
agreement. Therefore, it was free to recommend a longer prison term.
{¶20} Grier’s supplemental second and third assignments of error are,
therefore, overruled.
SUPPLEMENTAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. IV
THAT THE ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE
OF OHIO IMPROPERLY BREADED [SIC] THE VALID
-11-
Case No. 3-10-09
JUNE 17, 2009 CONTRACT PLEA AGREEMENT ENTERED
INTO WITH DEFENDANT-APPELLANT BY MAKING
EXTRANEOUS REMARKS OF AN EGREGIOUS NATURE
ABOUT DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S ABSENCE FROM
THE LOWER COURT’S JURISDICTION AT THE MARCH 1,
2010 SENTENCING HEARING.
{¶21} In his fourth supplemental assignment of error, Grier’s appellate
counsel argues that the prosecutor’s remarks constituted “obvious error” because
they were “tantamount to a recommendation of the more severe penalty * * *
[and] the trial court would not have imposed the more severe sentence but for the
prosecutor’s remarks.” (Supplemental Appellate Brief at 11).
{¶22} When asked to give the State’s recommendation for Grier’s sentence,
the prosecutor stated as follows:
Your Honor, the activity is an F3 possession of cocaine,
6.58 grams of crack cocaine. His prior record is aggravated
trafficking F3 in 1993; assault on a peace officer F4 in 2000;
another assault F4 in 2001; possession of cocaine in 2001;
falsification, 2001.
He’s gone for the better part of six months when he knew
that he had a sentencing obligation. He signed forms, you know,
both for his bonding company and also was advised on the
record of his requirements to appear at various hearings,
including the sentencing hearing. He decided he wasn’t gonna
do it.
We believe the prison term is appropriate in this case.
The statute calls for a mandatory term of incarceration. We
believe that no less than two years is appropriate based on his
conduct.
(Mar. 1, 2010 Tr. at 9-10).
-12-
Case No. 3-10-09
{¶23} Grier’s appellate counsel claims that the prosecutor’s remarks were
obvious error since they were “tantamount to a recommendation of the more
severe penalty.” In support of his position, appellate counsel cites the case of
State v. Kline, 2nd Dist. No. 2009-CA-02, 2010-Ohio-3913, in which the Second
District Court of Appeals found that the prosecutor had breached the terms of the
plea agreement by emphasizing the egregious nature of the crimes committed by
the defendant, which effectively had served as a recommendation for a more
severe sanction. 2010-Ohio-3913, ¶4.
{¶24} In Kline, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to three counts of
raping a child under the age of ten in exchange for the State’s dismissal of nine
similar counts and its promise not to recommend a sentence of life without parole.
Id. at ¶3. At the sentencing hearing, while the prosecutor correctly advised the
trial court that the only sentencing options were fifteen years to life or life without
parole on each count, the prosecutor then went on to highlight the egregious nature
of the offenses and the severe effect that the defendant’s conduct had had on the
three young victims. Id. Consequently, the trial court imposed three consecutive
sentences of life without parole. Id. However, on appeal, the Second District
Court of Appeals agreed with the defendant that the prosecutor had breached the
plea agreement because by emphasizing “the egregious nature of the crimes” he
-13-
Case No. 3-10-09
had been essentially recommending the more severe sentence of life without
parole.2 Id. at ¶4.
{¶25} While the prosecutor in this case did recommend a longer prison
term of two years instead of one year, we disagree with Grier’s appellate counsel’s
arguments and find the Kline case not dispositive. First of all, unlike the case in
Kline where the State had still been bound to the terms of the plea agreement, here
the State was no longer bound to the plea agreement with Grier at the March 1,
2010 sentencing hearing since Grier had breached the original plea agreement by
failing to appear for sentencing back in 2009. Thus, here the prosecutor was free
to recommend a longer prison sentence than one year. Furthermore, we do not
find any error with respect to the prosecutor’s comments on March 1, 2010, and
believe that his comments supported his new recommendation of two years in
prison. The prosecutor in Kline explicitly and in great detail emphasized the
horrendous nature of the defendant’s crimes. 2010-Ohio-3913, at ¶6. Here, the
prosecutor only mentioned Grier’s past offenses, which were contained within the
PSI before the trial court for purposes of sentencing. In addition, the prosecutor
briefly highlighted the fact that Grier had failed to appear for the original
2
While the court found that the State had breached the terms of the plea agreement, because the defendant
had failed to object to the prosecutor’s comments, the court also found that the defendant had waived all
but plain error and overall that the defendant had failed to show how he had been prejudiced by the
prosecutor’s breach. Kline, 2010-Ohio-3913, ¶¶4-10.
-14-
Case No. 3-10-09
sentencing hearing and had been absent for the past six months, a fact that was
well within the trial court’s knowledge.
{¶26} Therefore, Grier’s supplemental fourth assignment of error is
overruled.
SUPPLEMENTAL ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. V
THAT THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED A BREACH OF
CONTRACT AND PLAIN ERROR BY SENTENCING
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT TO A TERM OF
INCARCERATION GREATER THAN ONE YEAR,
SUFFICIENT TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S JUNE 17, 2009 CONTACT
PLEA AGREEMENT, AND TO JUSTIFY REMAND OF THIS
CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCEMENT [SIC].
{¶27} In the last supplemental assignment of error, Grier’s appellate
counsel argues that the trial court committed a breach of contract and plain error
by sentencing Grier to an enhanced sentence of two years imprisonment rather
than the one year imprisonment sentence agreed to in the plea agreement. In
support of his argument, Grier’s appellate counsel cites to State v. Vari, 7th Dist.
No. 07-MA-142, 2010-Ohio-1300.
{¶28} In Vari, the defendant and the prosecution entered into a plea
agreement in which the defendant agreed to plead guilty to each of the counts in
the indictment in exchange for the prosecution agreeing to recommend a four-year
prison term at sentencing. 2010-Ohio-1300, at ¶3. During the change of plea
-15-
Case No. 3-10-09
hearing, the trial court explicitly agreed to adopt the sentencing recommendation
based on the assurances that the police officers involved had agreed to and did not
object to the terms. Id. When it came time to the sentencing hearing, the
defendant expressed his desire to withdraw his guilty plea. Id. at ¶4. At that point,
the trial court cautioned the defendant and informed him that if the defendant went
ahead with his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and if the trial court ultimately
denied his motion, then the trial court would no longer be bound by the plea
agreement and would be free to impose whatever sentence was allowed by law
regardless of any recommendations. Id. The defendant moved to withdraw his
guilty plea and the trial court overruled his motion. Id. Thereafter, the trial court
imposed an aggregate eight-year term of imprisonment. Id. at ¶5. On appeal, the
Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed and found as follows:
In this case, the trial court promised to sentence Vari to four
years in exchange for his guilty plea. Admittedly, Vari attempted
first to breach the agreement by moving to withdraw his guilty
plea. However, the trial court made it impossible for him to
breach by denying the motion to withdraw. Consequently,
because Vari’s performance under the agreement remained, the
trial court should have sentenced him in accordance with the
plea agreement. Since the trial court determined that sentencing
Vari in accordance with the plea agreement was no longer
appropriate, Vari was entitled to either rescission or specific
performance. Under the unique facts and circumstances of this
case and given Vari’s assigned error, we find that the trial court
erred in overruling the motion to withdraw.
Id. at ¶30 (emphasis in original)(internal citations omitted).
-16-
Case No. 3-10-09
{¶29} While Grier’s appellate counsel cites to Vari in support of his
position that the trial court breached the plea agreement by failing to impose the
agreed-upon one year prison sentence, we find Vari distinguishable from the facts
of this case. First of all, in Vari the trial court had explicitly agreed to impose the
recommended sentence at the change of plea hearing. 2010-Ohio-1300, at ¶3. In
this particular case, the trial court explicitly did not agree to impose the agreed
upon recommended sentence.3 In fact, at the change of plea hearing, the trial court
informed Grier as follows:
The Court: Okay. Do you understand that technically the Court
is not a party to your agreement, it is strictly between you and
your lawyer and the Prosecutor; do you understand that?
The Defendant: Well –
The Court: That means you don’t see my signature on it. The
Court is not bound by the agreement, you and your lawyer are
and the State is. That means I could change it if I wanted to.
The Defendant: Right.
(June 17, 2009 Tr. at 5-6). Other appellate courts have held that “‘[w]hen a trial
court promises a certain sentence, that promise becomes like an inducement to
enter a plea, and unless that particular sentence is given, then the plea is not
voluntary.’” State v. Layman, 2nd Dist. No. 22307, 2008-Ohio-759, ¶15, quoting
State v. Bonnell, 12th Dist. No. CA2001-12-094, 2002-Ohio-5882, ¶18, citing
3
We acknowledge that the written plea agreement stated that in exchange for his guilty plea “[t]he
defendant will be sentenced to one year prison with credit for time served.” (Plea Agreement, Doc. No. 40)
(emphasis added). However, we note that only Grier, his defense counsel, and the assistant prosecutor
signed the written plea agreement, and at the change of plea hearing, the trial court clearly informed Grier
that it was not bound by the plea agreement. Moreover, Grier was given the opportunity to withdraw his
guilty plea at the sentencing hearing, but elected to go forward. Thus, we find that the outcome would still
be the same, regardless of the language used in the plea agreement.
-17-
Case No. 3-10-09
State v. Triplett (Feb. 13, 1997), 12th Dist. No. 69237. Consequently, when a trial
court promises to impose a particular sentence, it commits reversible error when it
ultimately fails to impose the promised sentence. Layman, 2008-Ohio-759, at ¶15,
quoting Bonnell, 2002-Ohio-5882, at ¶18. However, it is clear that in this
particular case the trial court did not agree to impose the recommended sentence;
therefore, it did not commit any error when it did not impose the one year prison
term agreed upon in the plea agreement.
{¶30} Furthermore, and most importantly, unlike the case in Vari where the
defendant had only “attempted” to breach his plea agreement, here Grier actually
breached his plea agreement prior to being sentenced when he failed to appear to
the scheduled sentencing hearing on August 17, 2009. Because Grier clearly
breached the plea agreement when he failed to appear at the original sentencing
hearing, the State was entitled to rescind the plea agreement. Even when the State
chose to rescind the plea agreement, the trial court still allowed Grier the
opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea; however, Grier chose to go forward with
sentencing, even though the plea agreement was no longer on the table.
{¶31} Therefore, based on the above, we find that the trial court did not
commit any breach when it imposed the two year prison term, rather than the one
year prison term pursuant to the plea agreement because the trial court was not
-18-
Case No. 3-10-09
bound by the plea agreement, and further because the plea agreement had been
breached due to Grier’s failure to appear at the original sentencing hearing.
{¶32} Grier’s fifth supplemental assignment of error is, therefore,
overruled.
{¶33} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
SHAW and WILLAMOWSKI, J.J., concur.
/jnc
-19-