State v. Givens , 2015 Ohio 361 ( 2015 )

[Cite as State v. Givens, 2015-Ohio-361.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2014-02-047
: OPINION
- vs - 2/2/2015
:
DEONTE CORTEZ GIVENS, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Case No. CR2013-09-1490
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael A. Oster, Jr., Government
Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for plaintiff-appellee
Scott N. Blauvelt, 246 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio 45011, for defendant-appellant
RINGLAND, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Deonte Givens, appeals from his conviction and the
sentence he received in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to
robbery, theft and a firearm specification.
{¶ 2} On January 7, 2014, Givens pled guilty to charges of robbery with a gun
specification and petty theft. At the plea hearing, the trial court attempted to engage in a plea
colloquy as required by Crim.R. 11.
Butler CA2014-02-047
{¶ 3} During that colloquy, the trial court failed to advise Givens that he was subject
to a mandatory prison term for the robbery charge because he had been adjudicated
delinquent for aggravated robbery as a minor. While the trial court advised Givens that "the
minimum sentence you could get there would be two years," the court did not advise Givens
that the minimum sentence was mandatory.
{¶ 4} The trial court went on to advise Givens that he may be eligible to earn days of
credit while in prison. However, because Givens' prison term was mandatory, he was not
eligible to earn days of credit. In addition, the trial court informed Givens that there was a
"presumption that prison is necessary." However, prison was mandatory for Givens rather
than merely presumed. Moreover, the plea form itself was marked "N/A" under the heading
titled "Prison Term is Mandatory/Consecutive." Finally, the judgment of conviction entry itself
did not state that the prison sentence for the robbery conviction is mandatory.
{¶ 5} Givens now appeals his conviction and sentence, raising three assignments of
error for review.
{¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 7} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT IN ITS
ACCEPTANCE OF A GUILTY PLEA WHICH WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND
VOLUNTARY, IN VIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE
FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION.
{¶ 8} Within this assignment of error, Givens argues that, "[a] trial court errs in
misadvising an accused of the mandatory nature of his prison sentence during the plea
colloquy, and the court further errs in advising [the] accused that he can earn credit against
the prison term to be imposed."
{¶ 9} The defendant's plea in a criminal case is invalid if not made knowingly,
-2-
Butler CA2014-02-047
intelligently, and voluntarily. State v. Ackley, 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2013–04–010, 2014-
Ohio-876, ¶ 8, citing State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 7. Failure on
any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United
States and Ohio Constitutions. State v. Hendrix, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-12-265, 2013-
Ohio-4978, ¶ 8.
{¶ 10} Crim.R. 11(C) facilitates an accurate determination as to whether a plea to a
felony charge meets these criteria by ensuring an adequate record for review. State v. Nero,
56 Ohio St.3d 106, 107 (1990). Crim.R. 11(C)(2) requires the trial court to hold a plea
colloquy with the defendant for the purposes of:
(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily,
with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the
maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant
is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community
control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.
(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the
defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no
contest, and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may
proceed with judgment and sentence.
(c) 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
beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant
cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.
{¶ 11} In conducting this colloquy, the trial judge must convey accurate information to
the defendant so that the defendant can understand the consequences of his decision and
enter a valid plea. State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 26.
{¶ 12} A guilty plea is invalid if the trial court does not strictly comply with Crim.R.
11(C)(2)(c), which requires the court to verify the defendant understands the constitutional
rights that he is waiving. Ackley at ¶ 9, citing Veney at ¶ 31. But a court need only
-3-
Butler CA2014-02-047
substantially comply with the nonconstitutional notifications required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)
and (b). Ackley at ¶ 9. Under the substantial compliance standard, the appellate court must
review the totality of the circumstances surrounding the defendant's plea and determine
whether he subjectively understood the effects of his plea. State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d
86, 2008-Ohio-509, ¶ 20.
{¶ 13} Even if we find the trial court did not substantially comply with Crim.R.
11(C)(2)(a) and (b), then we must make a further determination as to whether the trial court
at least partially complied. Hendrix, 2013-Ohio-4978 at ¶ 11, citing Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239at ¶ 32. If the trial court wholly failed to comply, the plea must be vacated. Sarkozy, 117
Ohio St.3d 86 at ¶ 22. If, on the other hand, the trial court partially complied, then the plea
will not be vacated unless the defendant can show he was prejudiced by the extent to which
the trial court was in noncompliance. Hendrix at ¶ 11.
{¶ 14} It is undisputed that the trial court strictly complied with the constitutional
requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). With respect to the required notifications regarding
constitutional rights, the court advised Givens that a guilty plea would waive his rights to have
the matter tried before the court, to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, to confront witnesses against him, and to subpoena witnesses in his defense. Givens
affirmed that he understood the rights he was waiving.
{¶ 15} On the other hand, the trial court wholly failed to comply with the
nonconstitutional notifications of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b). The state argues that Givens
was repeatedly advised that he would be serving a mandatory sentence. A review of the
record demonstrates that each of the examples cited by the state were made in reference to
the gun specification charge, not the robbery charge. It is undisputed that the trial court
properly advised Givens that he would be subject to a mandatory prison sentence on the gun
specification charge both at the plea hearing and on the plea form. However, the trial court
-4-
Butler CA2014-02-047
failed to advise Givens that he was subject to a mandatory prison sentence on the robbery
charge.
{¶ 16} The miscommunication regarding the mandatory term of Givens' potential
sentence was too significant to allow the conclusion that he subjectively understood the
effects of his plea. Indeed, Givens' plea form itself suggested there was no mandatory prison
term for the robbery charge. Furthermore, Givens was improperly advised at the plea
hearing that prison was merely a presumption and that he was eligible to earn credit. At no
point, either through the plea form or during the plea hearing, was Givens advised that the
robbery charge carried a mandatory prison term. In fact, Givens was expressly advised that
a prison term was not mandatory. Such a failure cannot be considered harmless as a
mandatory prison term renders Givens ineligible for community control, judicial release, or
earned credit on the robbery charge. State v. Hendrix, 12th Dist. Butler App. No. CA2012-
12-265, 2013-Ohio-4978, ¶ 26. Accordingly, we find that Givens could not have subjectively
understood that he was subject to a mandatory prison term on the robbery charge.
{¶ 17} In light of the foregoing, having found that Givens' plea was not made
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily where the trial court failed to advise him that he was
subject to a mandatory prison term on the robbery charge, Givens' first assignment of error is
sustained.
{¶ 18} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 19} THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PLAIN ERROR TO THE PREJUDICE OF
APPELLANT IN IMPOSING MULTIPLE SENTENCES FOR ALLIED OFFENSES.
{¶ 20} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 21} THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY NOT
AFFORDING HIS RIGHT OF ALLOCUTION BEFORE IMPOSING SENTENCE.
{¶ 22} Based upon our resolution of the Givens' first assignment of error, the
-5-
Butler CA2014-02-047
remaining assignments of error are rendered moot.
{¶ 23} Givens' conviction and sentence for robbery, theft and the firearm specification
are hereby reversed and his plea to those offenses is vacated. This matter is reversed and
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the law and in accordance
with this opinion.
HENDRICKSON and PIPER, JJ., concur.
-6-