State v. Norris , 2019 Ohio 1488 ( 2019 )

[Cite as State v. Norris, 2019-Ohio-1488.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
OTTAWA COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. OT-18-019
Appellee Trial Court No. 17 CR 155
v.
Timothy Norris DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: April 19, 2019
*****
James J. VanEerten, Ottawa County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Barbara Gallé Rivas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Brad F. Hubbell, for appellant.
*****
ZMUDA, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} Appellant, Timothy Norris, appeals the judgment of the Wood County Court
of Common Pleas, sentencing him to 17 months in prison after he pled guilty to one
count of domestic violence. Finding no error below, we affirm.
A. Facts and Procedural Background
{¶ 2} On October 17, 2017, appellant was indicted on one count of domestic
violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(3), a felony of the fourth degree. The
charge of domestic violence stemmed from a physical altercation between appellant and
his ex-girlfriend that occurred on September 4, 2017.
{¶ 3} On October 20, 2017, appellant appeared for arraignment and entered a plea
of not guilty. The matter then proceeded through discovery. On January 8, 2018, the
trial court held a change of plea hearing at which appellant pled guilty to the charge of
domestic violence. The trial court then engaged in a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, during which
appellant provided the following explanation of the incident that gave rise to the domestic
violence charge:
[We] got in an argument. The side of her face wasn’t where me and
her got into it. I never hit her on that side of the face.
I hit her and she hit me and I hit her. It wasn’t that side of the face,
or whatever.
She told me to come back. The next thing I know she sent me a
picture of her face on another side of her face or whatever saying – and then
I asked her who did that side of her face or whatever? And her friend told
her to block me on Facebook and then she unblocked me. And I don’t
know. It was all, they all like was on drugs that day, and all I did was come
over there and try to ask about my daughter. It is a long story.
2.
{¶ 4} Thereafter, the trial court asked the state to recount the basis for the
domestic violence charge. The state responded, in relevant part:
Defendant has been previously convicted of domestic violence out of
the Ottawa County Municipal Court in 2014. The Case Number is CRB-
1400232.
In this particular matter of the indictment, the Defendant went into
the apartment of his ex-spouse and she had kicked him out. They separated
earlier, a couple days earlier. There was an altercation. He did slap her
face and he did leave the apartment.
And thereafter, she called law enforcement officers after the
altercation and after he had left.
The law enforcement officers did take pictures of her face and you
can see bruising on her left cheek, and this occurred at her residence on
Buckeye Boulevard here in Port Clinton in Ottawa County.
{¶ 5} In response to the state’s recitation of the facts, appellant clarified that he
was never married to the victim and that he did not live with the victim. The following
exchange then took place:
[THE STATE]: I did misspeak when I said ex-spouse. They had
been living together in a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. There is a child
and the paternity is being established, but they were living together as a
family unit and they had recently separated.
[THE COURT]: Do you agree with that?
3.
[APPELLANT]: I wasn’t living there. I live at 1200 West Fremont
Road, but we was together and split up because I left her alone and then I
came back over because she wanted me to come back over that and got in a
little argument and I left her alone.
***
[THE COURT]: Well, do you acknowledge that you caused or
attempted to cause physical harm to this woman?
[APPELLANT]: Yes.
{¶ 6} Following the Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the trial court accepted appellant’s plea,
and found him guilty of domestic violence. The trial court then continued the matter for
sentencing and ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.
{¶ 7} On March 15, 2018, appellant appeared before the trial court for sentencing.
Upon review of the presentence investigation report, the trial court ordered appellant to
serve 17 months in prison. It is from this order that appellant has timely appealed.
B. Assignment of Error
{¶ 8} In his brief, appellate counsel asserts the following “issue presented for
review,” which we will construe as an assignment of error:
Did the Court err when it found Mr. Norris II guilty of Domestic
Violence, a felony of the Fourth Degree in violation of O.R.C. §
2919.25(A)(D)(3), because the Court failed to establish a factual basis to
support conviction of the charged offense?
4.
II. Analysis
{¶ 9} In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in
finding him guilty without a sufficient factual basis to support the charge of domestic
violence. In particular, appellant urges that there was no evidence to demonstrate that he
and the victim were “family or household member[s]” as necessary to establish domestic
violence under R.C. 2919.25(A). The state counters that the trial court was not required
to ascertain the factual basis for the plea, because appellant admitted his guilt by pleading
guilty.
{¶ 10} Relevant here, we have held that a “guilty plea itself provides the necessary
proof of the elements of the crime, thus relieving the trial court of the obligation to
determine whether a factual basis exists to support the plea.” State v. Duhart, 6th Dist.
Lucas No. L-16-1283, 2017-Ohio-7983, ¶ 9, citing State v. Fuller, 12th Dist. Butler No.
CA2008-09-240, 2009-Ohio-5068, ¶ 105-106; see also State v. Rothenbuhler, 6th Dist.
Williams No. WM-15-008, 2016-Ohio-2869, ¶ 6 (“A trial court is not required pursuant
to Crim.R. 11(C) to set forth any factual basis for a guilty plea during a plea hearing.”);
State v. Jones, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-14-042, 2015-Ohio-4209, ¶ 10 (finding that “a
valid guilty plea waives a defendant’s right to challenge his conviction on the grounds of
insufficiency of the evidence”).
{¶ 11} Appellant pled guilty in this case. Appellant does not challenge the
adequacy of the Crim.R. 11 colloquy, or claim that his guilty plea was not knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily entered. Rather, appellant merely asserts that the trial court
lacked a sufficient factual basis to justify its acceptance of his guilty plea. As noted
5.
above, a guilty plea waives the right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Thus,
the trial court was not required to determine whether a factual basis supported appellant’s
plea. Consequently, appellant’s argument is without merit, and his sole assignment of
error is not well-taken.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 12} In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the Ottawa County Court of
Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal
pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
Gene A. Zmuda, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
6.