State v. Griffey

281 N.E.2d 32, 29 Ohio App. 2d 246, 58 Ohio Op. 2d 450, 1972 Ohio App. LEXIS 423
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 30, 1972
Docket30568
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 281 N.E.2d 32 (State v. Griffey) 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. Griffey, 281 N.E.2d 32, 29 Ohio App. 2d 246, 58 Ohio Op. 2d 450, 1972 Ohio App. LEXIS 423 (Ohio Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

Krenzler, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County.

Defendant appellant, hereinafter referred to as “defendant,” was indicted on July 1, 1969, by the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury for one count of forgery, under R. C. 2913.01, and one count of uttering, under R. C. 2913.01. At *248 his arraignment on July 16, 1969, defendant entered a plea of not guilty to both counts.

On September 9, 3969, defendant appeared in open court with his attorney and withdrew his plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty to the second count of the indictment for uttering and publishing a forged instrument. The trial court accepted the plea of guilty. The first count of the indictment for forgery was nolled on the recommendation of the County Prosecutor.

Defendant was sentenced to the Ohio Penitentiary with the sentence to run concurrently with the service of sentences from Ashtabula County, also for the crimes of uttering and publishing.

Defendant filed this appeal and his assignment of error is as follows:

“Appellant was denied fundamental due process of law at the time his plea of guilty was accepted, in that the trial court failed to make a full determination in regard to appellant’s understanding of that to which he was pleading guilty and to the consequences of such plea. Without such a determination, the voluntariness of such a plea is in question.”

The transcript of proceedings made at the time the trial court allowed the defendant to withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty contains the following. The court made inquiry of the defendant concerning his age, employment, marital status and schooling. The court further inquired as to whether defendant’s attorney had explained to him all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the guilty plea; whether he understood he had a right to a trial by jury or a trial by the court; that the prosecutor must prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; that he was pleading guilty to a felony and that he might be incarcerated; and finally the court asked the defendant whether the plea was of his own free will and whether he had received any inducements to enter the guilty plea. After making the foregoing inquiries and receiving the appropriate responses the trial court accept *249 ed the defendant’s plea of guilty to the second count in the indictment. The court nolled the first count of the indictment.

The prosecution contends that the plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally made, that the plea was not the result of coercion, deception or intimidation, that defense counsel was present at the time of the plea and that he advised the defendant of the circumstances surrounding the indictment, that the defendant understood the nature of the charge against him and that he was motivated either by a desire to seek a lesser penalty or the fear of the consequence of a jury trial. State v. Piacella (1971), 27 Ohio St. 2d 92. Also see, North Carolina v. Alford (1970), 400 U. S. 25; Brady v. United States (1970), 397 U. S. 742; Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U. S. 238; Machibroda v. United States (1962), 368 U. S. 487.

The prosecutor further contends that when a defendant enters a plea of guilty, in addition to being a confession, it is like a verdict of a jury, and is conclusive, and the court has nothing to do but enter judgment and sentence. Kercheval v. United States (1927), 274 U. S. 220, 223, 71L. Ed. 1009.

This court has had numerous cases on appeal concerning the issue of the validity of a guilty plea. Unfortunately, many guilty pleas accepted by trial courts do not satisfy the requirement that the plea be voluntarily, intentionally and understandingly entered into and that defendant know the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of his pleading guilty.

Acceptance of a plea of guilty by the trial court should be based on substance and not form. Many times guilty pleas are accepted by the trial judge merely going through motions and not making a determination that the defendant’s plea was voluntarily made. Acceptance of a plea should be based on reality and not be a mere ritual. Kennedy v. United States (6th Cir. 1968), 397 F. 2d 16.

Because of the serious nature of a plea of guilty it is incumbent upon the court to take the necessary time to *250 inform a defendant of his rights and determine whether the defendant has a complete understanding of the action he is taking.

This court believes that a useful purpose will be served in setting forth certain minimum standards that must be satisfied before a trial judge can accept a plea of guilty.

When a defendant enters a plea of guilty he is admitting his guilt of a crime, which may be the crime charged or a lesser included offense, and it is then not necessary for him to go to trial. A guilty plea is more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts. It is itself a conviction and nothing remains but to give judgment and determine punishment. Boykin v. Alabama, supra; Machibroda v. United States, supra.

A plea agreement is now a well accepted and approved method of disposing of criminal cases. It is probably the most frequent method of conviction in all jurisdictions. In some localities as many as 95% of the criminal cases are disposed of in this manner. ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice: Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty, p. 1 (Approved Draft 1968).

The guilty plea provides a means by which a defendant may acknowledge his guilt and manifest a willingness to assume responsibility for his conduct.

A guilty plea should be accepted by the trial court when a person charged with a crime enters a plea of guilty voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally, with an understanding of the charge against him and of the consequences of entering a plea of guilty. However, in the use of this procedure the courts have an obligation to make sure that an innocent defendant does not involuntarily enter a plea of guilty because of fear, intimidation, coercion or lack of understanding.

Before a guilty plea is accepted the trial judge should make certain that the defendant’s constitutional rights and privileges have been explained to him. Courts should use utmost caution not to accept a guilty plea unless made voluntarily and after a proper advice by the court to the *251 defendant and with his full understanding of the consequences.

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

Related

State v. Ridgeway
583 N.E.2d 1123 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1990)
State v. Menucci
514 N.E.2d 758 (Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas, 1986)
State v. Davis
434 N.E.2d 285 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1980)
City of Akron v. Ragsdale
399 N.E.2d 119 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1978)
Davis v. State
361 A.2d 113 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1976)
State v. Buchanan
334 N.E.2d 503 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1974)
State v. Little
296 N.E.2d 574 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 N.E.2d 32, 29 Ohio App. 2d 246, 58 Ohio Op. 2d 450, 1972 Ohio App. LEXIS 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-griffey-ohioctapp-1972.