State v. Fedyszyn

2023 Ohio 4267

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 27, 2023
• Docket: 2023-P-0035
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Fedyszyn, 2023-Ohio-4267.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PORTAGE COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, CASE NO. 2023-P-0035

Plaintiff-Appellee, Criminal Appeal from the - vs - Court of Common Pleas

CHRISTINE N. FEDYSZYN, Trial Court No. 2022 CR 01346 D Defendant-Appellant.

OPINION

Decided: November 27, 2023 Judgment: Affirmed

Victor V. Vigluicci, Portage County Prosecutor, 241 South Chestnut Street, Ravenna, OH 44266 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Eric R. Fink, 11 River Street, Kent, OH 44240 (For Defendant-Appellant).

MARY JANE TRAPP, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Christine Fedyszyn (“Ms. Fedyszyn”), appeals from the judgment

of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas sentencing her to 30 months in prison

following her guilty plea to obstructing justice, a third-degree felony.

{¶2} Ms. Fedyszyn’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967),

asserting there are no meritorious issues for review. After an independent review of the

record pursuant to Anders, we find the appeal is wholly frivolous. Thus, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the Portage County

Court of Common Pleas.

Procedural and Substantive History

{¶3} In November 2022, the Portage County Grand Jury indicted Ms. Fedyszyn

on three counts: obstructing justice, a third-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2921.32;

intimidation of a crime victim, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2921.04;

and endangering children, a first-degree misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 2919.22. The

charges arose from Ms. Fedyszyn’s alleged obstruction of the police’s investigation

regarding her boyfriend’s alleged sexual assault of her minor daughter.

{¶4} Ms. Fedyszyn initially pleaded not guilty. She subsequently entered into a

written plea of guilty to count 1 (obstructing justice) in exchange for the state’s dismissal

of counts 2 and 3. The trial court held a change of plea hearing and engaged in a plea

colloquy with Ms. Fedyszyn pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2). The trial court found Ms.

Fedyszyn knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered her guilty plea; found her guilty;

dismissed the remaining charges; and ordered a presentence investigation. At the

sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Ms. Fedyszyn to 30 months in prison.

{¶5} Ms. Fedyszyn filed a notice of appeal. Her appellate counsel subsequently

filed a brief pursuant to Anders, supra, asserting there are no non-frivolous issues for

review, and a motion to withdraw. Appellate counsel set forth the following potential

assignment of error:

{¶6} “The Defendant-Appellant’s plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or

voluntarily entered into.”

Case No. 2023-P-0035 Standard of Review

{¶7} In Anders, the Supreme Court of the United States held that if appellate

counsel, after a conscientious examination of the record, finds an appeal to be wholly

frivolous, he or she should advise the court and request permission to withdraw. Id. at

744. This request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief citing anything in the

record that could arguably support an appeal. Id. Further, counsel must furnish his or

her client with a copy of the brief and the request to withdraw, and give the client an

opportunity to raise any additional issues. Id. Once these requirements have been met,

the appellate court must review the entire record to determine whether the appeal is

wholly frivolous. Id. If the court finds the appeal wholly frivolous, the court may grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and proceed to a decision on the merits. Id. If, however,

the court concludes the appeal is not frivolous, it must appoint new counsel. Id.

{¶8} This court issued a judgment entry granting Ms. Fedyszyn 30 days to file

her own submission if she so chose. Ms. Fedyszyn did not file her own submission.

Accordingly, we proceed to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to

Anders.

Guilty Plea

{¶9} As a potential assignment of error, appellate counsel asserts Ms.

Fedyszyn’s guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made.

{¶10} “When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of those points renders

enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and

the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996).

Case No. 2023-P-0035 {¶11} Crim.R. 11 was adopted to give detailed instructions to trial courts on the

procedures to follow before accepting guilty pleas. State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472,

2011-Ohio-4130, 953 N.E.2d 826, ¶ 9. Crim.R. 11(C)(2) provides, in relevant part:

{¶12} “In felony cases the court * * *shall not accept a plea of guilty * * * without

first addressing the defendant personally * * * and doing all of the following:

{¶13} “(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with

understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and if

applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of

community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.

{¶14} “(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant

understands the effect of the plea of guilty * * *, and that the court, upon acceptance of

the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentence.

{¶15} “(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant

understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront

witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the

defendant’s favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against

himself or herself.”

{¶16} We do not find any meritorious issues for review in relation to the trial court’s

compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). A review of the plea hearing transcript demonstrates

that the trial court engaged in a plea colloquy with Ms. Fedyszyn that fully complied with

Crim.R. 11(C)(2). In particular, the trial court addressed Ms. Fedyszyn personally and

advised her (1) she was pleading guilty to a third-degree felony, which carried a maximum

Case No. 2023-P-0035 penalty of 36-months in prison, a $10,000 fine, and court costs; (2) the trial court, upon

acceptance of her plea, could proceed to sentence her; (3) by pleading guilty, she was

waiving her rights to a jury trial, to confront witnesses against her, to compel witnesses to

testify for her, and to require the state to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a

trial; and (4) she had a constitutional right not to testify. Ms. Fedyszyn confirmed she

understood the trial court’s advisements. Accordingly, the record demonstrates Ms.

Fedyszyn’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. The potential

assignment of error is without merit.

{¶17} After an independent review of the record, we conclude the instant appeal

is wholly frivolous. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment

of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

JOHN J. EKLUND, P.J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

Case No. 2023-P-0035