State v. Erich

2017 Ohio 8528
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 13, 2017
Docket2016-A-0056
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 2017 Ohio 8528 (State v. Erich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Erich, 2017 Ohio 8528 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Erich, 2017-Ohio-8528.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ASHTABULA COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : OPINION

Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NO. 2016-A-0056 - vs - :

BRYAN M. ERICH, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas. Case No. 2015 CR 00734.

Judgment: Affirmed.

Nicholas A. Iarocci, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt, Assistant Prosecutor, Ashtabula County Courthouse, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047-1092 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Anna Markovich, 18975 Villaview Road, Suite 3, Cleveland, OH 44119 (For Defendant- Appellant).

TIMOTHY P. CANNON, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Bryan M. Erich, appeals from the judgment entry accepting a

guilty plea and imposing sentence, entered by the Ashtabula County Court of Common

Pleas on March 29, 2016. For the following reasons, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

{¶2} On December 30, 2015, appellant was indicted by the Ashtabula County

Grand Jury on four counts: Count 1, Illegal Assembly or Possession of Chemicals for the

Manufacture of Drugs, a second-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2925.041(A) and (C)(2); Count 2, Possession of Heroin, a fourth-degree felony in violation of R.C.

2925.11(A) and (C)(6)(b); Count 3, Aggravated Possession of Drugs, a fifth-degree felony

in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A) and (C)(1)(a); and Count 4, Possessing Criminal Tools, a

fifth-degree felony in violation of R.C. 2923.24(A).

{¶3} Appellant was arraigned on February 19, 2016. He was appointed counsel

and entered a plea of not guilty to all four counts.

{¶4} On March 29, 2016, appellant entered into a plea agreement with appellee,

the state of Ohio. Appellant agreed to withdraw his not guilty plea. He entered a written

plea of guilty to Count 1 and Count 2; the state agreed to dismiss Count 3 and Count 4.

The parties also stipulated to a joint sentencing recommendation of five years in prison,

the minimum mandatory prison term on Count 1, and 12 months in prison on Count 2, to

be served concurrently with each other and with the sentences imposed by the Ashtabula

County Court of Common Pleas in two other cases: case No. 15-CR-664 and case No.

15-CR-419.

{¶5} At his plea and sentencing hearing, the trial court reviewed each page of

the plea agreement with appellant. The trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea and

the stipulated joint sentencing recommendation; it ordered Counts 3 and 4 dismissed.

{¶6} The trial court entered judgment on March 29, 2016.

{¶7} On August 4, 2016, appellant filed a motion for leave to file a delayed appeal

from the March 29, 2016 judgment entry. This court denied the motion in State v. Erich,

11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2016-A-0040, 2016-Ohio-7357.

{¶8} On August 4, 2016, appellant also filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty

plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 and requested a hearing on the motion. On September 8,

2016, the trial court overruled the motion without hearing.

2 {¶9} On September 20, 2016, appellant filed a second motion for leave to file a

delayed appeal from the trial court’s March 29, 2016 entry. This court granted appellant’s

motion on December 19, 2016.

{¶10} Appellant asserts two assignments of error on appeal:

[1.] The trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas without holding an evidentiary hearing.

[2.] The defendant’s guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

{¶11} Appellant’s first assignment of error pertains to the trial court’s denial of his

post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. Appellant did

not file an appeal from the trial court’s September 8, 2016 judgment entry that overruled

the motion.

{¶12} A trial court’s judgment of conviction is a final, appealable order when it sets

forth the fact of conviction, the sentence, the judge’s signature, and the time stamp

indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk. State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303,

2011-Ohio-5204, paragraph one of the syllabus (explaining Crim.R. 32(C) and modifying

State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330). A trial court’s order denying a

post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 is also a final,

appealable order. State v. Damron, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 10CA3375, 2011-Ohio-165, ¶7,

citing State v. Kramer, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 03AP-633, 2004-Ohio-2646, ¶3-5.

{¶13} Here, the trial court’s March 29, 2016 judgment of conviction and sentence

and its September 8, 2016 judgment overruling appellant’s post-sentence motion were

two separate final, appealable orders. Therefore, under App.R. 4(A), appellant had 30

days to file his notice of appeal from the trial court’s September 8, 2016 judgment entry.

3 In the absence of a timely filed notice of appeal or motion for leave to file a delayed appeal

from the trial court’s September 8, 2016 entry, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider

appellant’s argument with regard to that judgment entry. See, e.g., State v. Olds, 11th

Dist. Ashtabula No. 2007-A-0066, 2012-Ohio-2890, ¶11.

{¶14} Appellant’s first assignment of error is without merit.

{¶15} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues he received ineffective

assistance of counsel. Appellant alleges his trial counsel failed to file a motion to

suppress illegally obtained evidence and failed to adequately examine evidence prior to

advising him to enter into a plea agreement. Appellant maintains trial counsel’s deficient

representation precluded him from entering his plea knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily.

{¶16} In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an appellant

must demonstrate that trial counsel’s performance fell “below an objective standard of

reasonable representation and, in addition, prejudice arises from counsel’s performance.”

State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989), paragraph two of the syllabus (following

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)).

{¶17} In the context of a conviction based on a guilty plea, an appellant must

demonstrate that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) but for counsel’s error,

there is a reasonable probability appellant would not have pleaded guilty. State v. Xie,

62 Ohio St.3d 521, 524 (1992), citing Strickland, supra, at 687 and Hill v. Lockhart, 474

U.S. 52, 57-59 (1985).

{¶18} “A properly licensed attorney is presumed to be competent.” State v.

Strong, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2013-A-0003, 2013-Ohio-5189, ¶11, citing Strickland,

supra, at 688. “In order to rebut this presumption, the defendant must show the actions

4 of counsel did not fall within a range of reasonable assistance.” Id., citing Strickland,

supra, at 689.

{¶19} “[A] guilty plea ‘represents a break in the chain of events which has

preceded it in the criminal process.’” State v. Haynes, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 93-T-4911,

1995 WL 237075, *1 (Mar. 3, 1995), quoting State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269, 272

(1992). “[I]f a criminal defendant admits his guilt in open court, he waives the right to

challenge the propriety of any action taken by the court or counsel prior to that point in

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. O'Meara
2024 Ohio 2602 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Wilmington
2023 Ohio 512 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Ferguson
2020 Ohio 5578 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Patterson
2020 Ohio 5475 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Bell
2018 Ohio 4373 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 Ohio 8528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-erich-ohioctapp-2017.