State v. Geiger

2024 Ohio 740

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 29, 2024
• Docket: 113171 & 113174
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Geiger, 2024-Ohio-740.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : Nos. 113171 and 113174 v. :

MONICA GEIGER, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: VACATED, REVERSED, AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 29, 2024

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-23-678074-A and CR-23-677976-B

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Connor Davin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Aaron T. Baker, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J.:

In this consolidated appeal, defendant-appellant, Monica Geiger,

appeals from the trial court’s judgment entries that found her guilty of grand theft

in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-677976-B and abduction and grand theft in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-23-678074-A, and imposed consecutive sentences. She contends that

she never pleaded guilty to the abduction and grand theft charges in CR-678074 and

thus, the court erred in finding her guilty and ordering her to serve 42 months in

prison, consecutive to the sentence imposed in CR-677976. Pursuant to Loc.App.R.

16(B), the state concedes the error. For the reasons that follow, we vacate Geiger’s

conviction for abduction and grand theft in CR-678074 and remand to the trial court

for further proceedings. Additionally, we reverse her sentence in CR-677976 and

remand for resentencing.

I. Procedural Background

In December 2022, the state named Geiger in a three-count

indictment in CR-678074, charging her with kidnapping, abduction, and grand

theft. The state also charged Geiger with grand theft in CR-677976.

On May 17, 2023, the court conducted a plea hearing at which the

prosecutor set forth the plea agreement — the state would dismiss Count 1,

kidnapping, in CR-678074, in exchange for Geiger pleading guilty to Counts 2

(abduction) and 3 (grand theft), and to grand theft as charge in CR-677976. Geiger’s

attorney agreed with the state’s presentation of the plea agreement.

The court engaged in a plea colloquy with Geiger, advising her of her

Crim.R. 11 rights that she waived by pleading guilty to the “single count of this

indictment of grand theft,” (tr. 9) and the maximum penalties for grand theft.

Geiger then pleaded guilty to grand theft, which the court accepted and found her

guilty. The trial court did not accept any change of plea to the abduction or grand theft offenses as charged in CR-678074. Nevertheless, the trial court issued journal

entries in that case indicating that Geiger pleaded guilty to those offenses.

On August 15, 2023, Geiger appeared for sentencing. In CR-678074,

the court ordered Geiger to serve 30 months in prison for Count 2, abduction,

consecutive to 12 months in prison for Count 3, grand theft. The court also ordered

Geiger to serve 10 months on the grand theft offense in CR-677976. The court

ordered that Geiger serve both sentences consecutive to each other. Counsel for

Geiger did not object.

II. The Appeal

Geiger now appeals, raising the following three assignments of error:

I. The trial court engaged in plain error by failing to strictly or substantially comply with Criminal Rule 11 by not obtaining a guilty plea from Ms. Geiger or engaging in any plea colloquy at all as to trial court case number 678074, nevertheless docketed a journal entry indicating Ms. Geiger had entered guilty pleas and been found guilty in that matter when in fact she had not, and then proceeded to sentence her to prison for crimes she had not been found to have committed, in violation of the due process clause to the United States Constitution, as well as the Ohio Constitution.

II. Ms. Geiger received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, as guaranteed by both the United States Constitution, and the Ohio Constitution, where defense counsel permitted her to be sentenced to prison when she had not been found guilty.

III. The trial court’s consecutive sentencing of Ms. Geiger was inappropriate and clearly and convincingly not supported by the record.

The state concedes that the trial court committed plain error in

finding Geiger guilty of abduction and grand theft as charged in CR-678074, that counsel was ineffective for failing to object at sentencing, and that the court erred in

imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment in this case. We also agree that the

trial court erred.

The trial court completely failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 regarding

CR-678074 and thus, the trial court’s journal entry dated May 17, 2023, stating that

Geiger pleaded guilty to abduction and grand theft, and that the court found her

guilty, was erroneous. Because Geiger did not enter a guilty plea, any sentence

imposed in CR-678074 was also erroneous. See State v. Meese, 5th Dist.

Tuscarawas No. 2005P110075, 2007-Ohio-742, ¶ 4-9 (trial court erred in sentencing

the defendant when the court did not comply with Crim.R. 11, the defendant did not

enter a plea, and the court did not find him guilty); Crim.R. 11. We further find that

counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the court imposed its sentence.

The state asks this court, however, to uphold Geiger’s sentence in CR-

677976 because she has not challenged her plea or sentence in that case. We

disagree. Because the trial court ordered Geiger to serve her sentence in CR-677976

consecutive to the erroneous sentence CR-678074, this court must also reverse her

sentence in CR-677976 and remand for resentencing. See State v. Lincoln, 4th Dist.

Washington No. 18CA6, 2019-Ohio-3483 (defendant cannot serve his sentence in

one case consecutive to his original sentence in another case when that sentence no

longer exists).

Accordingly, we sustain Geiger’s assignments of error, vacate her

conviction in CR-678074, and reverse her sentence in CR-677976. We remand the cases to the trial court for further proceedings in CR-678074, and for resentencing

in CR-677976.

Judgments vacated, reversed, and remanded.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the

trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., and MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR