State v. Williams , 2011 Ohio 2551 ( 2011 )

[Cite as State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-2551.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 95853
STATE OF OHIO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
RICHARD WILLIAMS
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
AFFIRMED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-534090
BEFORE: Keough, J., Cooney, P.J., and S. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: May 26, 2011
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Stephen L. Miles
20800 Center Ridge Road
Suite 405
Rocky River, OH 44116
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William D. Mason
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor
BY: Mary McGrath
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Richard Williams (“Williams”), appeals the
trial court’s acceptance of his guilty plea and his sentence. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
{¶ 2} In February 2010, Williams was charged with seven counts each
of kidnapping, felonious assault, and gross sexual imposition, and six counts
of rape. All counts contained one or more specifications, including notice of
prior conviction, repeat violent offender specifications, sexual motivation
specifications, and sexually violent predator specifications.
{¶ 3} Since the procedural nature of this case is of importance to the
disposition of this appeal, we recount it in some detail. On the day of trial,
the State presented Williams with a plea agreement. Following extensive
day-long plea negotiations, the trial court was advised that Williams would be
entering into a plea agreement. After the State set forth the plea agreement
on the record, the trial court engaged in the requisite Crim.R. 11 plea
colloquy. During the colloquy, the trial court thoroughly advised Williams of
his constitutional rights he would be waiving by pleading guilty to the
charges set forth in the agreement. After Williams affirmatively stated he
understood these rights, the trial court advised him of the penalties he faced
on each count, postrelease control, and his sexual offender classification.
When the trial court inquired if any promises had been made, Williams
answered in the affirmative, stating that he believed his sentence would be 25
years to life. After the court told Williams that he would be facing a life
sentence with parole eligibility after 25 years, the trial court accepted
Williams’s plea and granted the State’s motion to amend the counts as
agreed. Williams then pled guilty to the counts as the trial court delineated
them on the record. When the trial court asked for his plea to the rape of
B.U., 1 Williams indicated he did not rape B.U. The trial court, the
prosecutor, and defense attorney realized that a mistake had been made in
the plea agreement and there was some confusion as to the proper agreement.
The prosecutor changed the victim’s name on the rape count to reflect what
was intended. The trial judge stated:
{¶ 4} “Court: * * * What the court is going to do is obviously I’ve gone
through the constitutional rights of the defendant. He has indicated he
understands he is waiving or giving up those rights and answered the other
questions in the Rule 11 colloquy.
{¶ 5} “However, when I went through the offenses to which he would be
pleading guilty, although the penalties do not change, some of the
amendments have changed. So I’m going to strike that and also advise the
We use initials to protect the identities of sexual assault victims involved.
1
defendant once again of exactly what he’ll be pleading to and strike any of his
changes of plea. * * *.”
{¶ 6} After the trial court went through the plea agreement with the
prosecutor and defense attorney, Williams again questioned the potential
sentence of 25 years to life. After a sidebar conversation, the court addressed
Williams and advised him that his sentence was at her discretion and she
would make no promises as to whether he would receive a sentence of 25
years to life. Williams then asserted that he wished to go to trial. The trial
court acknowledged this request: “Okay. We’ll see you tomorrow morning in
civilian clothes.” The trial court transcript indicates that the court then
stood in “recess.”
{¶ 7} When the trial court reconvened that same day, the judge
addressed the parties and stated that it was her understanding that the
parties had engaged in further plea negotiations during the recess. The
record, however, is unclear how much time had elapsed before reconvening.
The trial court then set forth the new plea agreement. After a few brief
conferences with his counsel, Williams indicated to the trial court that he
wished to accept the new plea deal:
{¶ 8} “Court: Okay. All right. I’ve gone through your constitutional
rights, did you understand those rights and did you understand that you are
waiving or giving up those rights?
{¶ 9} “Williams: Yes.
{¶ 10} “Court: All right. And you answered truthfully when I asked
your age, education, whether you were under the influence of drugs or
alcohol, about your citizenship; is that correct?
{¶ 11} “Defendant: Yes.”
{¶ 12} The trial court set forth the plea, the penalties associated
therewith, the possibility and consequences of Williams violating his current
parole status, Williams’s sex offender classification, and postrelease control.
Williams entered pleas of guilty to the renegotiated plea: guilty to one count
of gross sexual imposition and guilty to one count of rape with a prior
conviction specification for rape. Following the plea, the trial court stated,
“All right. Let the record reflect that the court finds the defendant
knowingly, voluntarily and with a full understanding of his rights enters his
change of plea.” Both the defense attorney and prosecutor stated they were
satisfied with the court’s compliance with Crim.R. 11.
{¶ 13} The trial court sentenced Williams to a life sentence on the rape
charge, with eligibility for parole after 25 years, to run consecutive to a
sentence of five years on the gross sexual imposition charge, for a total of life
in prison, with eligibility for parole after 30 years.
{¶ 14} Williams filed this delayed appeal, challenging the validity of his
plea and sentence.
Plea
{¶ 15} Under Crim.R. 11(C)(2), before accepting a guilty plea in a felony
matter, a trial court must personally address the defendant and (1) determine
that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with an understanding of
the nature of the charges and the maximum penalty; (2) inform the defendant
of and determine that the defendant understands the effect of the plea, and
that the court may proceed with judgment after accepting the plea; and (3)
inform the defendant and determine that the defendant understands that he
is waiving his constitutional rights to a jury trial, to confront the witnesses
against him, to call witnesses in his favor, and to require the State to prove
his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial where the defendant cannot be
forced to testify against himself.
{¶ 16} A trial court must strictly comply with the mandates of Crim.R.
11(C)(2) regarding the waiver of constitutional rights, meaning the court
must actually inform the defendant of the constitutional rights he is waiving
and make sure the defendant understands them. State v. Veney, 120 Ohio
St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶27. Failure to fully advise a
defendant of his Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) rights renders a plea invalid. Veney at
29.
{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, Williams argues that he did not
enter his plea knowingly and voluntarily because the trial court failed to
strictly comply with the mandates of Crim.R. 11(C)(2) when it failed to
readvise him of his constitutional rights prior to accepting his guilty plea to
the renegotiated plea. Williams has failed to cite to any legal authority
supporting his argument; however, our research of the issue failed to find
precedent for this court to follow.
{¶ 18} During the initial plea colloquy, the trial court strictly complied
with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) by advising Williams of his constitutional rights.
Williams affirmatively stated he understood that by pleading guilty to the
offenses set forth in the initial plea agreement, he would be waiving or giving
up his constitutional right to have a trial by jury or before a judge, his right to
subpoena witnesses to appear and testify, his right to cross-examine
witnesses, the right to have the State prove his guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, and the right to not testify, nor be compelled to testify, at trial. Tr.
31-33.
{¶ 19} The plea colloquy was disrupted, not because Williams did not
understand his Crim.R. 11 rights, but because confusion existed as to the
victim of the rape charge and because Williams thought he was receiving a
25-to-life sentence. It was during this confusion that Williams demanded a
trial. After an unknown period of time, the parties negotiated a new plea
agreement, which was placed before the trial court. The trial court did not
readvise Williams of his constitutional rights, but rather questioned whether
he understood those constitutional rights that were previously set forth and
whether he understood he would be waiving those rights. After Williams
affirmatively stated he understood, the trial court proceeded with the plea,
ultimately accepted the plea, and imposed a sentence.
{¶ 20} This court would prefer trial courts to take the extra step and
readvise a defendant of his Crim.R. 11(C)(2) constitutional rights when a plea
is disrupted or when a new plea agreement has been reached. At the very
least, the trial court should make sure the record reflects how much time has
elapsed between the original plea and the end of the recess. Trial courts run
the risk of noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of Crim.R. 11 when
the advisement of a defendant’s constitutional rights does not immediately
precede the actual plea entered by a defendant. See Veney; State v. Troiano,
Franklin App. No. 09AP-862, 2010-Ohio-3019, 9.
{¶ 21} However, we find that the facts and circumstances in this case
demonstrate that the trial court strictly complied with the mandates of
Crim.R. 11(C)(2). The trial judge commented that she previously advised
Williams of his constitutional rights and questioned him prior to accepting his
plea on the renegotiated plea deal as to whether he understood those rights
and that he was waiving those rights. Williams responded affirmatively.
{¶ 22} Finally, the record reflects that the nature of the charges in the
renegotiated plea deal were the same as the initial plea deal, except the
renegotiated plea contained fewer charges. In the first plea deal, the State
offered the following plea: one count of kidnapping, two counts of felonious
assault, one count of gross sexual imposition, and one count of rape
containing a prior conviction specification. In the renegotiated deal, the
State offered, and Williams ultimately pled guilty to, one count of gross
sexual imposition and one count of rape containing a prior conviction
specification. The charges did not change, just the number of them.
{¶ 23} Finally, because only a limited lapse of time occurred between the
two pleas such that the pleas occurred on the same day and possibly within
hours of each other, the initial colloquy between Williams and the trial court
was sufficient to satisfy the mandates of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c).
{¶ 24} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to readvise
Williams of his Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) rights prior to accepting his guilty plea.
Williams’s first assignment of error is overruled.
Consecutive Sentence Findings
{¶ 25} Williams contends in his second assignment of error that the trial
court erred in sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment without
making the findings required under R.C. 2929.14(E)(4), in violation of his
right to due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution. Williams asserts that the holding in State v. Foster, 109
Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, 845 N.E.2d 470, that R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and
2929.41(A) were unconstitutional, is no longer valid in light of Oregon v. Ice
(2009), 555 U.S. 160, 129 S.Ct. 711, 172 L.Ed.2d 517.
{¶ 26} The Ohio Supreme Court recently rejected this argument in State
v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1, 2010-Ohio-6320, 941 N.E.2d 768. The court
concluded that Ice did not require it to depart from its holding in Foster
because “there is no constitutional requirement that a judge make findings of
fact before imposing consecutive sentences” and requiring resentencing to
include findings of fact would “disrupt reasonable and settled expectations of
finality,” and impose an “undue burden on the judicial system.” Hodge at
30-32.
{¶ 27} Accordingly, Williams’s second assignment of error is 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.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR