Mansfield v. Feagin

[Cite as Mansfield v. Feagin, 2022-Ohio-2207.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CITY OF MANSFIELD : JUDGES:
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. John W. Wise, J.
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs- :
:
ULYSSES L. FEAGIN, II : Case No. 2021 CA 0064
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Mansfield Municipal
Court, Case No. 2019CRB06474
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: June 27, 2022
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
MICHAEL J. KEMERER ULYSSES L. FEAGIN, II, PRO SE
30 North Diamond Street Inmate No. A783-954
Mansfield, OH 44902 Belmont Correctional Institution
68518 Bannock Road
St. Clairsville, OH 43950
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0064 2
Wise, Earle, P.J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Ulysses L. Feagin, II, appeals his July 20, 2021
conviction for disorderly conduct by the Mansfield Municipal Court of Richland County,
Ohio. Plaintiff-Appellee is city of Mansfield.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On August 18, 2019, officers were dispatched to the scene of a domestic
dispute. Upon their arrival, appellant fled the scene. Appellant was caught and charged
with disorderly conduct/intoxication in violation of Mansfield Codified Ordinances
509.03(b)(2), resisting arrest in violation of Mansfield Codified Ordinances 525.09(a), and
obstructing official business in violation of Mansfield Codified Ordinances 525.07(a).
{¶ 3} On October 2, and 24, 2019, appellant signed unlimited speedy trial
waivers.
{¶ 4} On July 20, 2021, appellant pled guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly
conduct in violation of Mansfield Codified Ordinance 509.03(a), a minor misdemeanor.
The remaining two charges were dismissed. By journal entry/sentencing order filed same
date, the trial court fined appellant $150.00 plus costs.
{¶ 5} Appellant filed a pro se appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:
I
{¶ 6} "TRIAL COURT PARTICIPATED IN SHAM LEGAL PROCESS, IN WHICH
I WAS DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OR ADDRESS COURT DENIED DUE
PROCESS."
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0064 3
II
{¶ 7} "VIOLATION OF CRIM.R. 11, FED.R.CRIM. P 11 BY TRIAL COURT. THE
TRIAL COURT INVOLUNTARILY ENTERED A GUILTY PLEA, DID NOT EXPLAIN
VARIOUS PLEAS CRIM R. 11(B) AND/OR CHARGES OR AGREEMENTS."
III
{¶ 8} "INEFFECTIVE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
WHICH IS GUARANTEED ME BY 6TH-14TH AMENDMENT SECTION 10,16 ARTICLE
1 OF OHIO CONSTITUTION."
IV
{¶ 9} "VIOLATION OF STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A
SPEEDY TRIAL, UNDER O.R.C. 2945.11-2945.73 AND 18 U.S.C. 3161-3174, ORC
2945.71 B1 2945.71 B2."
I, II
{¶ 10} In his first assignment of error, appellant claims he was denied due process.
{¶ 11} In his second assignment of error, appellant claims a violation of his Crim.R.
11 rights.
{¶ 12} We disagree with appellant's arguments.
{¶ 13} Appellant argues he was never given a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
He also argues he pled no contest, but the trial court "entered a plea of guilty without my
consent or voluntarily given by me." Further, appellant argues the trial court failed to
explain "various pleas Crim.R. 11(B) and/or charges or agreements."
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0064 4
{¶ 14} Appellant failed to file a transcript of the plea hearing. By judgment entry
filed April 18, 2022, this court permitted appellant to supplement the record with a
transcript on or before May 27, 2022. Appellant failed to do so.
{¶ 15} Absent the transcript, we are unable to review the Crim.R. 11 exchange
between the trial court and appellant and appellant's plea. In Knapp v. Edwards
Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199, 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980), the Supreme Court of Ohio
held the following:
The duty to provide a transcript for appellate review falls upon the
appellant. This is necessarily so because an appellant bears the burden of
showing error by reference to matters in the record. See State v. Skaggs,
53 Ohio St.2d 162 (1978). This principle is recognized in App.R. 9(B), which
provides, in part, that " * * * the appellant shall in writing order from the
reporter a complete transcript or a transcript of such parts of the
proceedings not already on file as he deems necessary for inclusion in the
record. * * *." When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of
assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing
to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice
but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm.
(Footnote omitted.)
{¶ 16} The trial court's August 19, 2021 journal entry/sentencing order states the
following:
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0064 5
This case came before the court on 07/20/2021. Defendant was
present in court with counsel present and entered pleas to the charges listed
below. Defendant was advised of the maximum penalties involved, right to
counsel, right to have counsel appointed if indigent, right to trial by jury, right
to confrontation and the right to compulsory process. Defendant knowingly
waived these rights. Plea was accepted.
{¶ 17} The journal entry indicates appellant pled guilty to a reduced charge of
disorderly conduct in violation of Mansfield Codified Ordinance 509.03(a).
{¶ 18} Upon review, we find the record before this court establishes appellant was
heard by the trial court and received due process, was subject to a Crim.R. 11 colloquy
and knowingly waived his rights, and entered a plea of guilty to the charge.
{¶ 19} Assignments of Error I and II are denied.
III, IV
{¶ 20} In his third assignment of error, appellant claims he was denied effective
assistance of trial counsel.
{¶ 21} In his fourth assignment of error, appellant claims he was denied his
statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial.
{¶ 22} We disagree with appellant's arguments.
{¶ 23} Appellant argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to object "when
involuntary guilty plea was entered." Again, without the benefit of a transcript, we must
"presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm." Knapp, supra.
Richland County, Case No. 2021 CA 0064 6
{¶ 24} Appellant further argues his counsel was ineffective for failing to move for
dismissal with prejudice because the case had nearly reached its second calendar year
and he never signed a waiver. A review of the record belies this argument.
{¶ 25} Appellant signed a pro se unlimited speedy trial waiver on October 2, 2019.
Appellant again waived his speedy trial rights through his counsel on October 24, 2019.
This waiver was also unlimited. "[T]the speedy trial time period does not run when the
defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives their speedy trial rights." State v. Hopings,
6th Dist. Lucas No. L-20-1075, 2022-Ohio-1532, ¶ 57, citing State v. Blackburn, 118 Ohio
St.3d 163, 2008-Ohio-1823, 887 N.E.2d 319, ¶ 17-22. Defense counsel moving for a
dismissal on speedy trial rights would have been futile given the waivers.
{¶ 26} Upon review, we do not find any ineffective assistance of counsel nor
violations of appellant's speedy trial rights.
{¶ 27} Assignments of Error III and IV are denied.
{¶ 28} The judgment of the Mansfield Municipal Court of Richland County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By Wise, Earle, P.J.
Wise, John, J. and
Delaney, J. concur.
EEW/db