[Cite as State v. Cleveland, 2024-Ohio-3039.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1224 L-23-1225 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202301236 CR0202202553 v.
Byron Cleveland DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: August 9, 2024
***** Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lorrie J. Rendle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
*****
SULEK, P.J.
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant Byron Cleveland appeals the
September 20, 2023 judgments from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas,
convicting him following his guilty pleas to two counts of involuntary manslaughter, one
count of felonious assault, one count of discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited
premises, and one count of participating in a criminal gang. For the following reasons,
the trial court’s judgments are affirmed. I. Factual Background and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On September 13, 2022, Cleveland was indicted in case No. CR-22-2553 for
one count of aggravated murder, an unspecified felony, one count of attempt to commit
aggravated murder, a felony of the first degree, two counts of felonious assault, felonies
of the second degree, one count of discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises, a
felony of the first degree, and one count of participating in a criminal gang, a felony of
the second degree.
{¶ 3} Those charges arose from the events of February 12, 2022, when Cleveland
and several others, while riding in a Dodge Charger, discharged firearms at a vehicle and
struck two of the vehicle’s occupants. The driver of the vehicle suffered several gunshot
wounds while one of the passengers was killed. Several days after the murder, Cleveland
fled to the state of Texas to evade the police that were investigating the incident.
{¶ 4} On February 16, 2023, Cleveland was indicted in case No. CR-23-1236 on
two counts of murder, unspecified felonies, two counts of felonious assault, felonies of
the second degree, one count of discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited premises, a
felony of the first degree, and one count of participation in a criminal gang, a felony of
the second degree. These charges arose from the events of May 15, 2022, when
Cleveland and several others, while riding in a Buick Lucerne, discharged firearms at a
Mazda SUV and struck one of the vehicle’s occupants who later died. The police
recovered the Buick and found a DNA profile consistent with Cleveland. Cellular data
also placed Cleveland in the Buick before, during, and after the shooting.
2. {¶ 5} On September 7, 2023, at a joint plea hearing, Cleveland pleaded guilty
pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford to amended charges in both cases. In case No. CR-
22-2553, Cleveland agreed to plead guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter, with
an attached firearm specification. And in case No. CR-23-1236 Cleveland pleaded guilty
to one count of involuntary manslaughter with an attached firearm specification, one
count of felonious assault, one count of discharging a firearm near prohibited premises,
and one count of participating in a criminal gang. In exchange, the State agreed to
dismiss all the other charges.
{¶ 6} On September 14, 2023, the trial court sentenced Cleveland to an agreed-
upon aggregate prison sentence of 39 years with an indefinite tail of five and one-half
years.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 7} Cleveland raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
1. Appellant’s guilty pleas, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford,
were not offered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
III. Law and Analysis
{¶ 8} Cleveland asserts that his Alford pleas were not entered knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily because he did not understand the penalties resulting from
the guilty pleas because he was “overwhelmed” by the court proceedings. Cleveland
does not specify what information he failed to understand, but rather only challenges that
the trial court accepted his one-word responses during the proceedings. He argues that
3. the one-word responses demonstrate that he did not comprehend or appreciate the
penalties of the guilty pleas.
{¶ 9} The State maintains that Cleveland understood the proceedings as
demonstrated by his dialogue with the trial court where he verbally affirmed that he
understood the information being provided. Further, the State contends that Cleveland
failed to specify a violation of Crim.R. 11 because he does not show where he was
confused during the proceedings.
{¶ 10} “A guilty plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily to be
valid under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions.” State v. Whitman, 2021-
Ohio-4510, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.), citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969); State v.
Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 (1996). “To ensure that a defendant enters a plea
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the trial court is required to engage a defendant
in a plea colloquy pursuant to Crim.R. 11.” Id., quoting State v. Petronzio, 2021-Ohio-
2041, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.). Crim.R. 11(C)(2) requires the trial court to determine that the plea
is made voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charges and the maximum
penalty involved, that the defendant understands the effect of the plea, and that the
defendant understands the rights that are being waived.
{¶ 11} On review, this court must examine “the totality of the circumstances
through a de novo review of the record to ensure that the trial court complied with
constitutional and procedural safeguards.” State v. Gumm, 2022-Ohio-2287, ¶ 16 (6th
Dist.), quoting State v. Parks, 2019-Ohio-2366, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.). The focus should be on
4. “whether the dialogue between the court and the defendant demonstrates that the
defendant understood the consequences of his plea.” State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765,
¶ 12.
{¶ 12} Except where a trial court fails to explain the constitutional rights that a
defendant waives by pleading guilty or no contest, “the traditional rule is that he must
establish that an error occurred in the trial-court proceedings and that he was prejudiced
by that error.” Dangler at ¶ 13-14. “The test for prejudice is ‘whether the plea would
have otherwise been made.’” Id. at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108
(1990).
{¶ 13} Cleveland does not argue that the trial court failed to explain his
constitutional rights, thus the issue before this court is whether his dialogue with the trial
court demonstrated that he understood the consequences of the plea agreement.
{¶ 14} In State v. Marcum, 2008-Ohio-2292, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.), the Tenth District
affirmed a plea as knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made where the court asked
the defendant over two dozen questions to ensure that he understood the nature of the
charges and the constitutional rights that he was waiving. In that case, the defendant
argued that his simple responses “such as ‘yes, your honor,’ and ‘no, your honor,’ failed
to demonstrate he understood the nature of the charges with any depth.” Id. at ¶ 8. In
rejecting this argument, however, the Tenth District reasoned, “[I]t is not unusual for
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Cleveland, 2024-Ohio-3039.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1224 L-23-1225 Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202301236 CR0202202553 v.
Byron Cleveland DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: August 9, 2024
***** Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lorrie J. Rendle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
*****
SULEK, P.J.
{¶ 1} In this consolidated appeal, appellant Byron Cleveland appeals the
September 20, 2023 judgments from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas,
convicting him following his guilty pleas to two counts of involuntary manslaughter, one
count of felonious assault, one count of discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited
premises, and one count of participating in a criminal gang. For the following reasons,
the trial court’s judgments are affirmed. I. Factual Background and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On September 13, 2022, Cleveland was indicted in case No. CR-22-2553 for
one count of aggravated murder, an unspecified felony, one count of attempt to commit
aggravated murder, a felony of the first degree, two counts of felonious assault, felonies
of the second degree, one count of discharging a firearm on or near prohibited premises, a
felony of the first degree, and one count of participating in a criminal gang, a felony of
the second degree.
{¶ 3} Those charges arose from the events of February 12, 2022, when Cleveland
and several others, while riding in a Dodge Charger, discharged firearms at a vehicle and
struck two of the vehicle’s occupants. The driver of the vehicle suffered several gunshot
wounds while one of the passengers was killed. Several days after the murder, Cleveland
fled to the state of Texas to evade the police that were investigating the incident.
{¶ 4} On February 16, 2023, Cleveland was indicted in case No. CR-23-1236 on
two counts of murder, unspecified felonies, two counts of felonious assault, felonies of
the second degree, one count of discharging a firearm on or near a prohibited premises, a
felony of the first degree, and one count of participation in a criminal gang, a felony of
the second degree. These charges arose from the events of May 15, 2022, when
Cleveland and several others, while riding in a Buick Lucerne, discharged firearms at a
Mazda SUV and struck one of the vehicle’s occupants who later died. The police
recovered the Buick and found a DNA profile consistent with Cleveland. Cellular data
also placed Cleveland in the Buick before, during, and after the shooting.
2. {¶ 5} On September 7, 2023, at a joint plea hearing, Cleveland pleaded guilty
pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford to amended charges in both cases. In case No. CR-
22-2553, Cleveland agreed to plead guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter, with
an attached firearm specification. And in case No. CR-23-1236 Cleveland pleaded guilty
to one count of involuntary manslaughter with an attached firearm specification, one
count of felonious assault, one count of discharging a firearm near prohibited premises,
and one count of participating in a criminal gang. In exchange, the State agreed to
dismiss all the other charges.
{¶ 6} On September 14, 2023, the trial court sentenced Cleveland to an agreed-
upon aggregate prison sentence of 39 years with an indefinite tail of five and one-half
years.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 7} Cleveland raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
1. Appellant’s guilty pleas, pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford,
were not offered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
III. Law and Analysis
{¶ 8} Cleveland asserts that his Alford pleas were not entered knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily because he did not understand the penalties resulting from
the guilty pleas because he was “overwhelmed” by the court proceedings. Cleveland
does not specify what information he failed to understand, but rather only challenges that
the trial court accepted his one-word responses during the proceedings. He argues that
3. the one-word responses demonstrate that he did not comprehend or appreciate the
penalties of the guilty pleas.
{¶ 9} The State maintains that Cleveland understood the proceedings as
demonstrated by his dialogue with the trial court where he verbally affirmed that he
understood the information being provided. Further, the State contends that Cleveland
failed to specify a violation of Crim.R. 11 because he does not show where he was
confused during the proceedings.
{¶ 10} “A guilty plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily to be
valid under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions.” State v. Whitman, 2021-
Ohio-4510, ¶ 14 (6th Dist.), citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969); State v.
Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 (1996). “To ensure that a defendant enters a plea
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, the trial court is required to engage a defendant
in a plea colloquy pursuant to Crim.R. 11.” Id., quoting State v. Petronzio, 2021-Ohio-
2041, ¶ 5 (8th Dist.). Crim.R. 11(C)(2) requires the trial court to determine that the plea
is made voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charges and the maximum
penalty involved, that the defendant understands the effect of the plea, and that the
defendant understands the rights that are being waived.
{¶ 11} On review, this court must examine “the totality of the circumstances
through a de novo review of the record to ensure that the trial court complied with
constitutional and procedural safeguards.” State v. Gumm, 2022-Ohio-2287, ¶ 16 (6th
Dist.), quoting State v. Parks, 2019-Ohio-2366, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.). The focus should be on
4. “whether the dialogue between the court and the defendant demonstrates that the
defendant understood the consequences of his plea.” State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765,
¶ 12.
{¶ 12} Except where a trial court fails to explain the constitutional rights that a
defendant waives by pleading guilty or no contest, “the traditional rule is that he must
establish that an error occurred in the trial-court proceedings and that he was prejudiced
by that error.” Dangler at ¶ 13-14. “The test for prejudice is ‘whether the plea would
have otherwise been made.’” Id. at ¶ 16, quoting State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108
(1990).
{¶ 13} Cleveland does not argue that the trial court failed to explain his
constitutional rights, thus the issue before this court is whether his dialogue with the trial
court demonstrated that he understood the consequences of the plea agreement.
{¶ 14} In State v. Marcum, 2008-Ohio-2292, ¶ 9 (10th Dist.), the Tenth District
affirmed a plea as knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made where the court asked
the defendant over two dozen questions to ensure that he understood the nature of the
charges and the constitutional rights that he was waiving. In that case, the defendant
argued that his simple responses “such as ‘yes, your honor,’ and ‘no, your honor,’ failed
to demonstrate he understood the nature of the charges with any depth.” Id. at ¶ 8. In
rejecting this argument, however, the Tenth District reasoned, “[I]t is not unusual for
defendants to respond to a trial judge’s questions during the plea discourse with a simple
5. ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ and we cannot assume that these defendants actually desired to say
something else.” Id., citing State v. Davis, 2008-Ohio-107, ¶ 19 (10th Dist.).
{¶ 15} In this case, the trial court verified Cleveland’s ability to understand the
proceedings when it had Cleveland verify his age, education, and ability to read and write
the English language. The trial court then asked Cleveland several questions regarding
the nature of the charges and the rights he was waiving, which Cleveland answered and
affirmed without confusion or further prompting. Like Marcum, nothing about
Cleveland’s one-word responses suggests that he did not understand the information that
the trial court presented, and there is no basis to assume otherwise. Thus, the dialogue
between Cleveland and the court demonstrates that he understood the nature of the
charges and the maximum penalties involved, the effect of his plea, and the rights that he
was waiving. Additionally, Cleveland’s defense counsel also informed the trial court that
he met with him the day before the plea hearing, went over the plea forms with him, and
represented that Cleveland understood the plea agreement. Therefore, the trial court did
not err when it determined that Cleveland had made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
waiver of rights through his Alford pleas.
{¶ 16} Accordingly, Cleveland’s assignment of error is not well-taken.
6. IV. Conclusion
{¶ 17} Based on the foregoing, the September 20, 2023 judgments of the Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas are affirmed. Cleveland is ordered to pay the costs of
this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgments affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Thomas J. Osowik, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Gene A. Zmuda, J. ____________________________ Charles E. Sulek, P.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/.
7.