DocketNumber: No. 22660.
Citation Numbers: 2009 Ohio 1413
Judges: DONOVAN, PJ.
Filed Date: 3/27/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
{¶ 3} In exchange for the dismissal of several of the pending charges against him, on February 13, 2008, Mack plead guilty to two counts of possession of crack cocaine (five to ten grams) in Case No. 2007 CR 2521. Mack additionally plead no contest to two counts of possession of crack cocaine (one to five grams) in Case Nos. 2007 CR 2617 and 2008 CR 0209, one count of discharging a firearm into a habitation in Case No. 2007 CR 4118, and one count of having a weapon while under disability in Case No. 2008 CR 0209.
{¶ 4} On February 27, 2008, the trial court sentenced Mack to an aggregate prison term of five years, to be served as follows: a mandatory five-year sentence in Case No. 2007 CR *Page 3 4118; a three-year mandatory sentence in Case No. 2007 CR 2521; a three-year mandatory sentence in Case No. 2007 CR 2916; a three-year sentence and a twelve-month sentence in Case No. 2008 CR 0209; and a twelve-month sentence in Case No. 2007 CR 2617, all terms of incarceration to be served concurrently with the initial five-year mandatory sentence in Case No. 2007 CR 4118. Mack also received a six-month driver's license suspension.
{¶ 5} Mack subsequently filed timely notices of appeal with this Court. Mack's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief, Anders v.California (1967),
{¶ 6} This case is now before us for our independent review of the record. State v. Strickland, Montgomery App. No. 21682,
{¶ 8} "DUE TO APPELLANT'S PLEAS OF GUILTY AND NO CONTEST, ALL AVENUES OF APPEAL, OTHER THAN WHETHER THE PLEA WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY AND WHETHER COUNSEL WAS EFFECTIVE IN PROMOTING THE PLEA, ARE FORECLOSED."
{¶ 10} Crim. R. 11(C) sets forth the requisite notice to be given to a defendant at a plea hearing on a felony. To be fully informed of the effect of the plea, the court must determine that the defendant's plea was made with an "understanding of the nature of the charges and the maximum penalty involved." Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(a).
{¶ 11} In order for a plea to be given knowingly and voluntarily, the trial court must follow the mandates of Crim. R. 11(C). If a defendant's guilty plea is not voluntary and knowing, it has been obtained in violation of due process and is void. Boykin v. Alabama (1969),
{¶ 12} A trial court must strictly comply with Crim. R. 11 as it pertains to the waiver of federal constitutional rights. These include the right to trial by jury, the right of confrontation, and the privilege against self-incrimination. Id. at 243-44. However, substantial compliance with Crim. R. 11(C) is sufficient when waiving non-constitutional rights. State v. Nero (1990),
Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving. Nero,
{¶ 13} A defendant who challenges his no contest plea on the basis that it was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made must show a prejudicial effect. State v. Goens (Oct. 10, 2003), Montgomery App. No. 19585,
{¶ 14} In reviewing the colloquy between the trial court and Mack, we find that the court substantially complied with the requirements set forth in Crim. R. 11(C), and that Mack's guilty and no contest pleas were made in a knowing and voluntary fashion. An examination of the record of the plea hearing in the instant case clearly establishes that the trial court fully complied with the requirements of Crim. R. 11(C)(2) before accepting Mack's guilty and no contest pleas. Thus, there is no arguable merit to the claim that Mack did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily enter his pleas.
{¶ 16} The above standard contains essentially the same requirements as the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court inStrickland v. Washington (1984),
{¶ 17} For a defendant to demonstrate that he has been prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance, the defendant must prove that there exists a reasonable probability that, absent counsel's errors, the result of the trial would have been different. Bradley, supra, at 143. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Strickland, supra, at 694.
{¶ 18} In the proceedings before the trial court, Mack was competently represented by two experienced attorneys. One attorney represented Mack in all proceedings and negotiations which occurred prior to the actual plea hearing. The first attorney laid the groundwork for the five-year aggregate sentence that Mack ultimately received. After the first attorney withdrew as *Page 7 counsel, the second attorney represented Mack at the plea hearing held on February 13, 2008, during which time Mack entered guilty and no contest pleas to the charges against him.
{¶ 19} After thoroughly reviewing the record, we hold that Mack has failed to establish that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The efforts of both attorneys resulted in Mack obtaining the dismissal of six additional felonies. Mack's attorneys' efforts also reduced a potential twenty-six year prison term to only five years of incarceration. There is no indication in the record before us that Mack was at all prejudiced by his attorneys' performance, quite the opposite, in fact. Thus, there is no arguable merit to the claim that Mack was deprived of the effective assistance in the proceedings before the trial court.
{¶ 21} With respect to his attorneys, Mack alleges that his trial counsel failed to properly investigate the charges against him, made mistakes in pretrial motions, failed to file pertinent motions, withdrew pending motions without his consent, missed appointments, failed to obtain relevant discovery, made misrepresentations regarding his pleas as well as the potential success of an appeal. Aside from being unsupported by the record, any non-jurisdictional defects raised by Mack which occurred prior to the voluntary entering of a plea of guilty or no contest are waived by said plea. State v. Randle, Montgomery App. No. 21931,
BROGAN, J. and FAIN, J., concur. *Page 1
State v. Strickland, 21682 (4-13-2007) , 2007 Ohio 1750 ( 2007 )
Anders v. California , 87 S. Ct. 1396 ( 1967 )
McCarthy v. United States , 89 S. Ct. 1166 ( 1969 )
Boykin v. Alabama , 89 S. Ct. 1709 ( 1969 )
Penson v. Ohio , 109 S. Ct. 346 ( 1988 )