State v. Wilson , 2014 Ohio 2014 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Wilson, 2014-Ohio-2014.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
CASE NO. 2013-L-075
- vs - :
ORLANDO WILSON, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 12 CR
000427.
Judgment: Affirmed.
Charles E. Coulson, Lake County Prosecutor and Alana A. Rezaee, Assistant
Prosecutor, Lake County Administration Building, 105 Main Street, P.O. Box 490,
Painesville, OH 44077 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Aaron T. Baker, 38109 Euclid Avenue, Willoughby, OH 44094 (For Defendant-
Appellant).
DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Orlando Wilson, appeals the judgment of the Lake
County Court of Common Pleas, convicting him of Grand Theft and Safecracking,
following his entry of a guilty plea. The issue to be determined by this court is whether
an error occurred when the transcript did not properly reflect the statement of the trial
court but was subsequently corrected. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment
of the court below.
{¶2} On August 27, 2012, the Lake County Grand Jury issued an Indictment,
charging Wilson with two counts of Grand Theft, felonies of the fourth degree, in violation
of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), two counts of Safecracking, felonies of the fourth degree, in
violation of R.C. 2911.31, and two counts of Receiving Stolen Property, felonies of the
fourth degree, in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A).
{¶3} On January 11, 2013, a Written Plea of Guilty was filed, in which Wilson
pled guilty to two counts of Grand Theft and one count of Safecracking. A Judgment
Entry was filed on the same date, accepting the plea and entering a Nolle Prosequi on
the remaining counts of the Indictment.
{¶4} A sentencing hearing was held on July 9, 2013, at which the court denied
Wilson’s request to withdraw his plea. A Judgment Entry of Sentence was filed on July
12, 2013, sentencing Wilson to a total prison term of 30 months.
{¶5} Wilson filed his Notice of Appeal on August 12, 2013. Subsequent to the
filing of the record and Wilson’s appellate brief, on January 6, 2014, the State filed a
Motion for Correction or Modification of the Record Pursuant to App.R. 9(E), noting that
there was a misstatement in the transcript that should be corrected. Attached was an
affidavit of the court reporter, stating that she had reviewed the filed transcript of the
change of plea hearing and recognized that “transcript page 38 contains a misstatement
of what was said on the record in open court at Appellant’s change of plea hearing.
Specifically, transcript page 38, line 23, states ‘$500.00,’ however the notes and audio
from the hearing indicate the number should read ‘$7,500.00.’” On January 21, 2014,
this court issued a Magistrate’s Order, granting the Motion and ordering that “[p]age 38
2
of the transcript of proceedings shall be corrected and substituted for the misstated page
38 of the transcript of proceedings.”
{¶6} On appeal, Wilson raises the following assignment of error:
{¶7} “Appellant’s guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
entered when he was incorrectly advised of the nature of the charges against him.”
{¶8} Wilson argues that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently given,
based solely on the fact that the trial court improperly advised him that the State must
prove the value of the property stolen is “more than $500” rather than more than $7,500,
which is a required element for the offense of Grand Theft. R.C. 2913.02(B)(2) (“[i]f the
value of the property or services stolen is seven thousand five hundred dollars or more
and is less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars, a violation of this section is grand
theft, a felony of the fourth degree”).
{¶9} The State argues that there is no error, given that the $500 amount initially
included in the transcript was due to a “clerical error” that has been corrected.
{¶10} Page 38 of the transcript did initially state that Wilson was advised by the
trial court that the State had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the stolen
property value, for the purposes of the Grand Theft conviction, exceeded $500.
However, following an inquiry by the State, the court reporter filed an affidavit with this
court, explaining that this was a mistake and that the notes and audio of the plea hearing
indicated that the court actually stated that the value must be more than $7,500.1
1. While the trial court stated that the amount must be “more than $7,500,” in other references it states
that the value of the property stolen was “$7,500 or more.” As discussed above, for a Grand Theft
conviction, the property stolen must be worth “seven thousand five hundred dollars or more.” (Emphasis
added). R.C. 2913.02(B)(2). This issue is not raised by Wilson, nor can we find any reason why this
would cause any prejudice or harm to Wilson’s ability to enter his plea knowingly and voluntarily.
3
{¶11} Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 9(E), “[i]f anything material to either party is
omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated, * * * the court of appeals, on
proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that omission or misstatement be
corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified, filed, and
transmitted.” Upon the State’s Motion, this court granted the request for the corrected
page of the transcript to be filed, through its Magistrate’s Order.
{¶12} There is no basis in the record for finding that the transcript with this
correction is inaccurate. Defense counsel has not objected or otherwise responded to
the amendment of the transcript. He does not allege that the events that occurred at the
hearing are not accurately reflected in the amended transcript. The corrected
advisement regarding the $7,500 is also consistent with separate statements reflected in
the transcript, in which the trial court advised Wilson that the State must prove the value
of the property to be $7,500 or more.
{¶13} Since a review of the record, including the court reporter’s affidavit, reveals
that Wilson was advised of the proper amount the State was required to prove at trial, no
error was made by the trial court on the sole issue raised. See State v. Babers, 3rd Dist.
Seneca No. 13-91-55, 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 2817, 6 (June 4, 1992) (finding no merit in
appellant’s assignment of error, since it was based on a mistake in the transcript that
was properly corrected). This renders any potential error that could be caused by an
improper advisement of the property value moot.
{¶14} The sole assignment of error is without merit.
4
{¶15} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Lake County Court of
Common Pleas, convicting Wilson of Grand Theft and Safecracking, is affirmed. Costs
to be taxed against appellant.
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.,
COLLEEN MARY O’TOOLE, J.,
concur.
5