State v. Ellis

[Cite as State v. Ellis, 2017-Ohio-8104.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 27520
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 15-CRB-566
:
ANTHONY ELLIS : (Criminal Appeal from
: Municipal Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 6th day of October, 2017.
...........
RAYMOND DUNDES, Atty. Reg. No. 0041515, Area Two Prosecutor’s Office, 6111
Taylorsville Road, Huber Heights, Ohio 45424
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
ANTHONY ELLIS, 4262 Knollcroft Drive, Trotwood, Ohio 45426
Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
.............
HALL, P.J.
-2-
{¶ 1} Anthony Ellis appeals pro se from his conviction in the Montgomery County
Municipal Court following his guilty plea to violating a civil protection order (CPO). Ellis
claims that he did not violate the CPO and pleaded guilty only to get out of jail. For the
reasons below, we affirm.
Facts and Proceedings
{¶ 2} In May 2015, Eldon Spillmen filed a complaint in the municipal court alleging
that, on May 5, Ellis had violated a CPO that Spillmen had against him. According to the
police report attached to the complaint, Ellis drove through Spillmen’s yard to get to a
parcel of property he owns that is adjacent to Spillmen’s. The CPO that was in effect at
the time prohibited Ellis from entering Spillmen’s property and from coming within 500
feet of Spillmen. In March 2016, Ellis, who was represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to
violating the CPO, R.C. 2919.27(A), a first-degree misdemeanor. After accepting his plea,
the court sentenced Ellis to 90-days in jail and court costs of $254. The court suspended
the jail sentence on the condition that he complete five years of community control.
{¶ 3} Ellis appealed.
Analysis
{¶ 4} Ellis does not explicitly present any assignments of error. In his brief, he
argues that he did not violate the CPO and only pleaded guilty “to get m[y] freedom back.”
He alleges that “[t]hese people at the court seem to have something against me and
believe that they can use the power of the state[,] the court[,] and Montgomery County jail
for the p[u]rpose of racial hate. I don’t think so the buck stops here. I buy land and build
homes[.] I don’t violate CPOs.” He asks us “not to allow evil people to use the power of
-3-
the state, police department, Montgomery jail and court as a personal tool for racial
hatred. Let the law be the law.” The State has not filed a brief.
{¶ 5} R.C. 2937.07 provides that“[i]f the offense is a misdemeanor and the accused
pleads guilty to the offense, the court or magistrate shall receive and enter the plea unless
the court or magistrate believes that it was made through fraud, collusion, or mistake.”
Ellis does not appear to be arguing that his guilty plea was the product of fraud, collusion,
or mistake. He says in his brief that he pleaded guilty so that he could get out of jail, which
is exactly what happened.
{¶ 6} Also, “[t]he plea of guilty is a complete admission of the defendant’s guilt.”
Crim.R. 11(B)(1). “By entering a plea of guilty, the accused is not simply stating that he
did the discreet acts described in the indictment; he is admitting guilt of a substantive
crime.” United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 570, 109 S. Ct. 757, 102 L. Ed. 2d 927
(1989). “Unlike a plea of no contest, which requires a trial court to make a finding of
guilt, State v. Bird, 81 Ohio St. 3d 582, 584, 692 N.E.2d 1013 (1998), a plea of guilty
requires no finding or verdict. Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S. Ct.
582, 71 L. Ed. 1009 (1927).” State v. Fryer, 2015-Ohio-4573, 48 N.E.3d 962, ¶ 26 (5th
Dist.). This is because “a counseled plea of guilty is an admission of factual guilt so
reliable that, where voluntary and intelligent, it quite validly removes the issue of factual
guilt from the case.” Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62, 96 S. Ct. 241, 46 L. Ed. 2d 195
(1975), fn. 2. By pleading guilty here, Ellis waived appeal on the question of his guilt.
{¶ 7} We note too that Ellis has not filed a transcript of the plea and sentencing
hearing that we could review. Therefore there is simply no record before us from which
we could evaluate his plea and must assume it was properly entered.
-4-
Conclusion
{¶ 8} We find no basis to reverse the municipal court’s judgment. Therefore the
judgment is affirmed.
.............
DONOVAN, J. and TUCKER, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Raymond Dundes
Anthony Ellis
Hon. William H. Wolff