State v. Lyles

2024 Ohio 5834

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 13, 2024
• Docket: C-240286
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lyles, 2024-Ohio-5834.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-240286 TRIAL NO. B-2301225 Plaintiff-Appellee, :

vs. : OPINION DANEISHA LYLES, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: December 13, 2024

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Michael J. Trapp, for Defendant-Appellant. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

ZAYAS, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Following a guilty plea, Daneisha Lyles was convicted of aggravated

vehicular assault. The charges stemmed from a head-on collision, caused by Lyles,

where the driver of the other vehicle suffered serious physical harm. Lyle’s blood-

alcohol level was 0.265, and she had three prior convictions within the past ten years

for operating a motor vehicle while impaired. In two assignments of error, Lyles

challenges her sentence and argues that the trial court erred by rejecting the

recommended sentence without giving her an opportunity to withdraw her guilty plea

and imposing a fine without considering her ability to pay. For the following reasons,

we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Factual and Procedural History

{¶2} The State and Lyles negotiated a plea agreement whereby Lyles would

plead guilty to aggravated vehicular assault, and in exchange, the State would dismiss

the vehicular assault charge. The parties also agreed on a potential sentence of two to

three years of incarceration. The plea form, initialed by Lyles, stated, “I understand

and acknowledge that I have agreed with the prosecution on a potential sentence, to

wit: 2 yrs. ODC. Credit any time served.” While memorializing the terms of the

agreement on the record, the prosecutor informed the court that the parties had

negotiated an agreement “[w]ith an agreed recommended sentence of two years.”

{¶3} Prior to accepting the plea, the court addressed Lyles regarding the

sentencing recommendation and explained, “Now you need to understand, ma’am,

that is a recommendation that everybody is making to me. But I ultimately will decide

what the sentence will be. It could be more. Do you understand that?” Lyles answered

affirmatively, and the court continued, “And knowing that there is no promise and

there’s no guarantee that you’re going to get the minimum, which is just two – wow,

2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

that is the minimum. No guarantee that you’re going to just get two, do you still want

to go forward with this plea?” Lyles responded, “Yes, your Honor.”

{¶4} The court reiterated to Lyles that “the plea agreement is a

recommendation, that I will decide the sentence, no guarantee you’re getting two.”

When Lyles confirmed that she understood, the court accepted the plea, found Lyles

guilty, and ordered a presentence investigation.

{¶5} At the sentencing hearing, the court sentenced Lyles to a prison term of

four to six years and imposed a $15,000 fine and a lifetime driver’s license suspension.

{¶6} Lyles now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by rejecting the

recommended sentence without first advising Lyles that it was rejecting the

recommendation and giving her the opportunity to withdraw her plea. Lyles also

contends the court erred by imposing a $15,000 fine without considering her ability

to pay the fine.

Recommended Sentence

{¶7} In her first assignment of error, Lyles contends that the trial court erred

by failing to provide her an opportunity to withdraw her plea after it decided to reject

the recommended sentence.

{¶8} Lyles argues that the court erred by imposing a longer sentence than the

recommended sentence agreed to by the parties. Lyles failed to object at the

sentencing, so we review for plain error. See State v. Anderson, 2014-Ohio-4699, ¶ 8

(2d Dist.); State v. Flowers, 2021-Ohio-2966, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). To establish plain error,

the accused must demonstrate an error that constitutes an obvious defect that affected

the outcome of the proceeding. See State v. Rogers, 2015-Ohio-2459, ¶ 22; Anderson

at ¶ 8 (“Plain error does not exist unless the record indicates that [defendant’s]

sentence would clearly have been different but for the error.”).

3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

{¶9} While plea agreements are contracts between the State and the

defendant, a trial court is not bound by a plea agreement. State v. Elliott, 2021-Ohio-

424, ¶ 8 (1st Dist.). “Thus, any plea agreement between the state and a defendant is

implicitly conditioned on the trial court’s acceptance of that agreement.” Elliott at ¶

8, quoting State v. Darnell, 2003-Ohio-2775, ¶ 7 (4th Dist.). Trial courts “may reject

plea agreements and . . . are not bound by a jointly recommended sentence.” State v.

Underwood, 2010-Ohio-1, ¶ 28.

{¶10} Due process requires a trial court to notify a defendant that it may

impose a longer prison term than the agreed recommended sentence. State v. Wilson,

2024-Ohio-1290, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.), citing Elliott at ¶ 8. “A trial court does not err by

imposing a sentence greater than ‘that forming the inducement for the defendant to

plead guilty when the trial court forewarns the defendant of the applicable penalties,

including the possibility of imposing a greater sentence than that recommended by the

prosecutor.’” State v. Jordan, 2024-Ohio-2361, ¶ 30 (8th Dist.), citing State v.

Buchanan, 2003-Ohio-4772, ¶ 13 (5th Dist.).

{¶11} In this case, prior to accepting the plea, the trial court engaged in a

colloquy with Lyles to ensure that she understood that the proposed sentence was only

a recommendation, and that the court would select the sentence from the range of two

to eight years in prison. The court repeatedly informed Lyles that it was not bound to

accept the recommended sentence, and that the court could impose a more severe

sentence. After ensuring that Lyles understood that there was no promise or

guarantee that the court would impose the recommended sentence, the trial court gave

her the opportunity to reject the plea. Lyles chose to plead guilty in accordance with

the plea agreement.

{¶12} Lyles acknowledges that the court notified her that the agreed

4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

sentencing recommendation was not binding on the court, and that the court could

impose a more severe sentence. Nonetheless, Lyles contends that the court should

have informed her that it was rejecting the recommended sentence and allowed her to

withdraw the plea, relying on Jordan, 2024-Ohio-2361 (8th Dist.). In Jordan, the

Eighth District determined that “the trial court committed error because it did not

expressly reject the agreed, recommended sentence prior to accepting Jordan’s guilty

plea or give Jordan an opportunity to withdraw his plea.” Id. at ¶ 31. The court further

held that, based on the plea colloquy, Jordan “had a reasonable expectation that the

trial court would implement a sentence within the agreed sentencing range of 15 to 18

years.” Id. at ¶ 28. Because the trial court indicated that it accepted the negotiated

sentence, the Eighth District concluded that the plea was not knowing because “the

trial court imposed a substantially greater sentence than what was agreed and

recommended without giving him an opportunity to withdraw his plea.” Id. at ¶ 33.

{¶13} Here, Lyles does not contend that she had a reasonable expectation that

the court would impose the recommended sentence, and the record establishes that

the court repeatedly notified Lyles that it was not bound to impose the recommended

sentence and informed her that it could impose a sentence of up to eight years. After

ensuring that Lyles understood that the court could impose a more severe sentence,

the court gave Lyles the opportunity to reconsider entering the guilty plea. Lyles

confirmed that she wished to enter the guilty plea, despite the possibility of a more

severe sentence.

{¶14} As this court explained in Elliott, when the trial court notified the

defendant that “it was only accepting the plea agreement as containing a sentencing

recommendation, not a stipulation” and “thereafter provided [the defendant] the

opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea . . . , we cannot conclude that the trial court

5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

went astray here.” Elliott 2021-Ohio-424, at ¶ 3 (1st Dist.). Here, as in Elliot, the trial

court did not err in imposing a sentence greater than the recommended sentence. See

id.

{¶15} Accordingly, we overrule the first assignment of error.

Imposition of a Fine

{¶16} In her second assignment of error, Lyles contends that the trial court

erred by imposing a fine without considering her ability to pay the fine.

{¶17} Lyles did not object to or challenge the fine in the trial court, so this

court reviews for plain error. See State v. Mosby, 2024-Ohio-5210, ¶ 63 (8th Dist.);

State v. Williams, 2017-Ohio-1002, ¶ 29 (11th Dist.) (“[T]he failure to object to the

amount of a fine at a time when the trial court could correct that error constitutes a

waiver of all but plain error.”).

{¶18} Under R.C. 2929.18(B)(5), a trial court “shall consider the offender’s

present and future ability to pay the amount of the sanction or fine.” “There are no

specific factors the trial court must consider in its analysis, nor must it make any

specific findings. As long as the record contains some indication that the court

considered the offender’s present and future ability to pay, the court’s imposition of a

financial sanction is not contrary to law.” State v. McCants, 2020-Ohio-3441, ¶ 12 (1st

Dist.). “[W]here the trial court reviews a presentence-investigation report that

contains information about the defendant’s age, health, education, and work history,

it can be inferred that the court considered the defendant’s present and future ability

to pay the fine.” Mosby at ¶ 64, citing State v. Clemons, 2015-Ohio-520, ¶ 10 (8th

Dist.); State v. Willis, 2012-Ohio-294, ¶ 4 (2d Dist.).

{¶19} In this case, the trial court ordered and reviewed a presentence

investigation report. The report included information regarding Lyles’s education and

6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

employment history. During the sentencing hearing, Lyles explained, and the court

acknowledged, that the incident created a financial hardship for her because her

insurance company refused to cover the damages. The record established that Lyles

hired her initial attorney, but after firing that attorney, Lyles contacted the public

defender’s office. The record is unclear whether Lyles’s new counsel was retained or

appointed. Lyles’s counsel presented the court with an affidavit of indigency prior to

the plea hearing, but did not file it or present it to the court at the sentencing hearing,

so it is not part of the record on appeal.

{¶20} We must conclude the court did not commit plain error by imposing a

fine because the record demonstrates that the trial court considered the presentence

investigation and discussed Lyles’s financial hardship prior to imposing the fine.

{¶21} Accordingly, we overrule the second assignment of error.

Conclusion

{¶22} Having overruled Lyles’s two assignments of error, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

Judgment affirmed.

BERGERON and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.

Please note:

The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.