State v. Walz

[Cite as State v. Walz, 2012-Ohio-4627.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO :
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 23783
v. : T.C. NO. 09CR1959
GREGORY L. WALZ : (Criminal appeal from
Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
..........
OPINION
Rendered on the 5th day of October , 2012.
..........
JOHNNA M. SHIA, Atty. Reg. No. 0067685, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third
Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
ROBERT ALAN BRENNER, Atty. Reg. No. 0067714, P. O. Box 341021, Beavercreek,
Ohio 45434
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
..........
DONOVAN, J.
{¶ 1} On June 25, 2009, defendant-appellant Gregory L. Walz was indicted on two
2
counts of felonious assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), both felonies of the first
degree; one count of vandalism, in violation of R.C. 2909.05(B)(1)(a), a felony of the fifth
degree; and one count of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, in
violation of R.C. 2921.331(B) and (C)(5), a felony of the third degree. On June 30, 2009,
Walz entered pleas of not guilty to all counts. On October 23, 2009, Walz changed his
pleas to guilty as to all counts. On November 5, 2009, Walz filed a notice of substitution of
counsel along with a motion to vacate his plea and a request for a hearing. In the motion to
vacate, Walz asserted that he relied on counsel’s advice in entering his guilty pleas and that
counsel failed to fully disclose the consequences of his decision.
{¶ 2} On December 3, 2009, a hearing was held on Walz's motion to vacate. The
matter was continued for further hearing on December 9, 2009 on the issue of whether
Walz's belief in his innocence was relevant to his request to withdraw his guilty plea. On
December 11, 2009, the trial court overruled Walz's motion to vacate. The trial court
subsequently sentenced Walz to seven years imprisonment for one of the felonious assault
convictions and 12 months for the vandalism conviction, to be served concurrently, as well
as 12 months for the failure to comply conviction, to be served consecutively with the first
two convictions. The two felonious assault convictions were merged for purposes of
sentencing.
{¶ 3} Walz filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court on December 14, 2009.
On appeal, Walz argued that his guilty plea was not made in a knowing and intelligent
fashion because he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the trial level. Walz also
argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate. On March 18, 2011, we
3
issued an opinion affirming the judgment of the trial court. State v. Walz, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 23783, 2011-Ohio-1270 (hereinafter referred to as “Walz I”).
{¶ 4} On June 16, 2011, Walz filed an application for the reopening of his appeal
pursuant to App. R. 26(B). We granted Walz’s application to reopen in an opinion issued
on December 19, 2011. In our opinion, we limited Walz’s appeal to the issues he raised in
his application for reopening: to wit, 1) the failure of his appellate counsel to argue that his
pleas were either void or were not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently because
the trial court failed to inform him that he faced a mandatory driver’s license suspension of
three years to life; 2) failure of appellate counsel to challenge the trial court’s disapproval of
intensive program prison (IPP) or shock incarceration in its sentencing entry without
addressing these issues at the sentencing hearing or making findings to support disapproval;
and 3) by prematurely disapproving his placement in transitional control for the final six
months of his imprisonment. For the following reasons, we reverse in part and sustain in
part the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 5} Walz’s first assignment of error is as follows:
{¶ 6} “GREGORY L. WALZ WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
OF LAW AS GUARANTEED BY THE UNITED STATES AND OHIO
CONSTITUTIONS BECAUSE HIS GUILTY PLEAS WERE NOT ENTERED
KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY, AND VOLUNTARILY.”
{¶ 7} In his first assignment, Walz argues that the trial court erred to his prejudice
when it failed to inform him at the plea hearing that he faced a mandatory three year to
lifetime driver’s license suspension on Counts II and IV, felonious assault (deadly weapon)
4
and failure to comply, respectively. Thus, Walz asserts that his guilty pleas to those two
counts was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made and therefore, should be
vacated.
{¶ 8} 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).
{¶ 9} 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,
395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
{¶ 10} 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, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990). The
non-constitutional rights that a defendant must be informed of are the nature of the charges
with an understanding of the law in relation to the facts, the maximum penalty, and that after
entering a guilty plea or a no contest plea, the court may proceed to judgment and sentence.
Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(a)(b); State v. Philpott, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 74392, 2000 WL 1867395(Dec. 14, 2000), citing McCarthy v. U.S., 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418(1969). Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances, the
5
defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is
waiving. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d at 108.
{¶ 11} A defendant who challenges his guilty plea on the basis that it was not
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made must show a prejudicial effect. State v,
Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 93, 364 N.E.2d 1163, 1167 (1977); Crim. R. 52(A). The test is
whether the plea would have been otherwise made. Id. at 108.
{¶ 12} Upon review of the colloquy between the trial court and Walz, we conclude
that the court did not substantially comply with the requirements set forth in Crim. R. 11(C).
Based on the nature of his offenses in Counts II and IV, Walz was subject to a mandatory
suspension of his driver’s license ranging from a minimum of three years to a maximum
lifetime suspension pursuant to R.C. 2903.11(D)(2) and 2921.331(E). The record of the
plea hearing establishes that at no time was Walz orally advised by the trial court that his
license was subject to a mandatory suspension ranging from three years to the remainder of
his life.
{¶ 13} We note that the plea form for Count II, felonious assault (deadly weapon),
did not mention that Walz was subject to a mandatory license suspension. Thus, in regards
to Count II, he was neither apprised orally nor pursuant to the plea form that he faced a
mandatory license suspension lasting a minimum of three years to a lifetime maximum. In
State v. Greene, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2005 CA 26, 2006-Ohio-480, we found that the
defendant was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to inform him orally or in writing that
he would receive a mandatory license suspension “of at least three years and as long as his
natural life.” Id. at ¶12. “It is reasonable to conclude that Greene would not have pled
6
guilty had he been aware that he could receive a lifetime driving suspension.” Id. Thus, we
held that Greene’s guilty plea was not rendered in a knowing and intelligent manner, and
was therefore, vacated.
{¶ 14} In the instant case, the trial court failed to inform Walz of the mandatory
driver’s license suspension orally at the plea hearing or in the plea form with respect to
Count II. The trial court’s failure in this regard prejudiced Walz to the extent that his plea
was rendered in less than a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner, thus requiring that
his conviction in Count II be reversed.
{¶ 15} The plea form for Count IV, failure to comply, did, however, state that Walz
was subject to a mandatory suspension of his driver’s license ranging from a minimum of
three years to a maximum lifetime suspension. Generally, we have held that “a trial court
speaks only through its journal entries.” State v. Hatfield, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 2006 CA
16, 2006-Ohio-7090. Therefore, because Walz was informed in the plea form which he
signed for Count IV that he was facing a mandatory license suspension, it follows that he
was ostensibly on notice of the impending suspension and he could not later claim that he
was unaware for the purposes of a motion to vacate his plea for that charge.
{¶ 16} During the following exchange at the plea hearing, the trial court orally
informed Walz of all of the penalties he would be subject to as a result of his guilty plea to
Count IV:
The Court: All right. Finally, as to failure to comply,
that is a felony of the third degree, which means that
the potential prison term can be anywhere from one year
7
to five years. Do you understand that?
Walz: Yes, sir.
Q: And also that as that – as it relates to any prison term
to be imposed for that felony [sic] to comply, it must be –
that prison term must be served in a consecutive fashion
to any other prison term. Do you understand that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And by consecutive, that means you would serve the
first prison term and then this prison term would be a
prison term that you would serve after the initial prison
term has been served for the other charges. Do you
understand that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: As opposed to what’s called a concurrent sentence, where
you would serve the sentences together. Do you understand
that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: All right. As to the failure to comply, there’s also a potential
fine, but the fine cannot exceed $10,000.00. Do you understand
that, sir?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: All right. Now, as I’ve said, those are all of the potential
8
penalties. ***
{¶ 17} The trial court went on to explain restitution and post-release control to
Walz, but never discussed the mandatory license suspension. In fact, after informing Walz
he was subject to a potential fine of $10,000.00 for failure to comply, the trial court stated
that “those are all of the potential penalties” without mentioning the mandatory license
suspension. This statement directly contradicts the section of the plea form which informed
Walz that he faced a mandatory license suspension ranging from three years to a lifetime
suspension. When material misinformation about a consequence of a guilty plea is
conveyed to a defendant, and the court by its silence fails to correct the mistake, the failure
renders the plea less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d
525, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). The trial court provided Walz misinformation when it advised
him that “those are all of the penalties.” In fact, they were not all of the penalties. The fact
that the plea form for Count IV contained the correct information only served further to
render the plea less than knowing and involuntary because it directly contradicted the oral
information Walz was provided by the trial court. Thus, Walz’s conviction on Count IV is
reversed.
{¶ 18} Lastly, we note that the Ohio Supreme Court has recently issued an opinion
which found that a mandatory driver’s license suspension is a statutorily mandated term.
State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318, 2012-Ohio-1908, 972 N.E.2d 509, at ¶ 15. The
Supreme Court held that a trial court’s failure to include this term in a criminal sentence
renders the sentence void in part. Id. Further, a mandatory driver’s license suspension
constitutes a criminal sanction, requiring re-sentencing of the offender which is limited to
9
imposition of the mandatory driver’s license suspension. Id. Unlike the instant case,
however, the defendant in Harris did not enter a plea; rather he pursued a trial and was
convicted by a jury. Id. Thereafter, the sentencing judge failed to include the statutorily
mandated license suspension in his judgment of conviction. In the instant case, the trial
court failed to properly inform Walz of the mandatory driver’s license suspension prior to
the entering of his guilty pleas, thus rendering the Crim. R. 11(C) plea colloquy deficient.
{¶ 19} Walz’s first assignment of error is sustained. Walz’s convictions for
Counts II and IV only are hereby reversed. These two counts are remanded for further
proceedings.
{¶ 20} Because they are interrelated, Walz’s second and third assignments of error
will be discussed together as follows:
{¶ 21} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DENIED IPP AND SHOCK
INCARCERATION IN ITS SENTENCING ENTRY.”
{¶ 22} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT DISAPPROVED OF WALZ’S
TRANSFER TO TRANSITIONAL CONTROL IN ITS SENTENCING ENTRY.”
{¶ 23} In his second assignment, Walz argues that the trial court erred when it
disapproved of his placement in a shock incarceration program and intensive prison
program in the judgment entry without first making specific findings required by R.C.
2929.14.
{¶ 24} R.C. 2929.19(D) provides that:
The sentencing court, pursuant to division (K) of section
10
2929.14 of the Revised Code, may recommend
placement of the offender in a program of shock
incarceration under section 5120.031 of the Revised
Code or an intensive program prison under section
5120.032 of the Revised Code, disapprove placement
of the offender in a program or prison of that
nature, or make no recommendation. If the court
recommends or disapproves placement, it shall make
a finding that gives its reasons for its recommendation
or disapproval.
{¶ 25} In State v. Howard, 190 Ohio App.3d 734, 2010-Ohio-5283, 944 N.E.2d
258, (2d Dist.), we held that a trial court errs when it disapproves of shock incarceration or
intensive program prison without making certain findings required by R.C. 2929.14. We
also held that it is premature for a trial court, at sentencing, to disapprove transitional
control.
{¶ 26} However, with respect to the trial court’s error in having disapproved of
shock incarceration and intensive program prison in this case, this error is necessarily
harmless, because Walz, as a first-degree felon, is not eligible for either program. R.C.
5120.031(A)(4) and R.C. 5120.032(B)(2)(a). See also State v. Porcher, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 24058, 2011-Ohio-5976; State v. Griffie, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24102,
2011-Ohio-6704; State v. DeWitt, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24437, 2012-Ohio-635.
{¶ 27} Lastly, we note that the trial court erred in prematurely disapproving Walz
11
for transitional control in the judgment entry of conviction. This error, however, can be
cured by remanding Counts I and III to the trial court for the limited purpose of amending
the judgment entry of conviction to delete the disapproval of Walz for transitional control.
See State v. DeWitt, 2012-Ohio-635.
{¶ 28} Walz’s second assignment is overruled as harmless error. Walz’s third
assignment is sustained.
{¶ 29} Walz’s first and third assignments of error having been sustained, this matter
is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
..........
GRADY, P.J., concurs.
HALL, J., concurring:
{¶ 30} I agree that the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s participation in either
Intensive Program Prison or Shock Incarceration is harmless error because the defendant,
serving a mandatory sentence for a first-degree felony, is not eligible for either program.
Nevertheless, I previously have questioned whether the statutory requirement that the trial
court make a “finding” of the reasons for denial of these programs is constitutional in light
of cases holding other aspects of judicial fact finding are unconstitutional. See State v.
Allender, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24864, 2012 -Ohio- 2963, ¶30 n. 2 (Hall, J., dissenting).
I also agree we previously have held that it is premature to deny transitional control at
sentencing. Howard, supra. Accordingly, this case should be reversed for the trial court to
correct its judgment entry of conviction with regard to both of those matters.
{¶ 31} The failure to inform the defendant of a mandatory driver’s license
12
suspension for the Felonious Assault (Police Officer) (Deadly Weapon-Motor Vehicle) and
the written-only admonition of a mandatory driver’s license suspension for the Failure to
Comply with an Order or Signal of a Police Officer creates a thornier problem. My analysis
begins with the posture of this appeal. This is a reopened appeal, pursuant to App. R. 26(B),
to raise ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The original appeal was from the trial
court’s Judgment Entry of Conviction and Sentencing, filed December 11, 2009. There, the
defendant was sentenced to seven years in prison for the Felonious Assault consecutive to
one year in prison for the Failure to Comply, concurrent with twelve months in prison for the
Vandalism charge, for a total of eight years’ imprisonment. No driver’s license suspension
was imposed even though the Felonious Assault (with an automobile as the deadly weapon)
carried a mandatory Class II suspension under R.C. 2903.11(D)(2), and the Failure to
Comply carried a mandatory Class II suspension under R.C. 2921.331(E) of three years to
life pursuant to R.C. 4510.02 (A)(2). We affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. No one
raised the lack of license suspensions at the plea colloquy or elsewhere at the trial court level
even though there was a pre-sentence motion to vacate the plea on the grounds that the
defendant did not understand the consequences of his pleas, and a full evidentiary hearing
was conducted. No one raised the lack of suspensions in the Judgment of Conviction and
Sentence in the direct appeal.
{¶ 32} To establish ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the appellant would
have the burden of establishing that his appellate counsel's representation fell below an
objectively reasonable standard of representation by failing to raise the issue he now presents
and that, as a result, he was prejudiced. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct.
132052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989).
There is a “strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of
reasonable professional assistance.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689. Here the question is
whether it was sound professional strategy for appellate counsel not to raise the fact that
missing from the defendant’s sentence was any driver’s license suspension whatsoever.
Normally, I would agree that it is a reasonable strategy to “let a sleeping dog lie.” With the
continuing passage of time, the likelihood that Mr. Walz ever would have suffered a driver’s
license suspension waned.1 But in the unique circumstances of this original appeal, Walz’s
only two assignments of error sought to vacate his plea on the basis that it was not
voluntarily made. I perceive no better way appellate counsel could have achieved that same
goal than to raise the lack of advice about the driver’s license suspensions, which, in turn,
would undoubtedly result in the plea being vacated and the case being remanded for further
proceedings. Thus, in this case, appellate counsel’s failure to raise the lack of driver’s
license suspensions constitutes ineffective assistance, and the defendant has been prejudiced
by not having his plea vacated. For these reasons, I agree that Walz’s convictions in Count
II and IV should be reversed and remanded.
..........
1
I note that by purported nunc pro tunc entry filed June 4, 2012, presumably in response to the assignment of error
raised in this reopened appeal, and in response to the Ohio Supreme Court case of State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318,
2012-Ohio-1908, 972 N.E.2d 509, decided May 3, 2012, the trial court imposed a single three-year driver’s license suspension.
However, the Felonious Assault and Failure to Comply convictions carry a mandatory suspension. The suspension purportedly
imposed on June 4, 2012, if effective, would expire in December 2012, almost five years before Walz is released from prison. I don’t
see how the lack of a driver’s license while in prison is prejudicial.
14
Copies mailed to:
Johnna M. Shia
Robert Alan Brenner
Hon. Michael L. Tucker