State v. Mauch

2025 Ohio 413

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 10, 2025
• Docket: CA2024-04-008
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Mauch, 2025-Ohio-413.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

MADISON COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-04-008

: OPINION - vs - 2/10/2025 :

RANDALL D. MAUCH, :

Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM MADISON COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CRI20230167

Nicholas A. Adkins, Madison County Prosecuting Attorney, and Rachel M. Price and Michael S. Klamo, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.

Shannon M. Treynor, for appellant.

PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Randall D. Mauch, appeals his conviction in the Madison County

Court of Common Pleas resulting from his guilty plea to one count of first-degree felony

aggravated possession of drugs. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm Mauch's Madison CA2024-04-008

conviction.

{¶ 2} On December 4, 2023, following the necessary Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy,

Mauch entered a guilty plea to one count of aggravated possession of drugs in violation

of R.C. 2925.11(A), a first-degree felony. The charge was based on Mauch having been

found in possession of approximately 183 grams of methamphetamine. The trial court

accepted Mauch's guilty plea upon finding it was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily

entered.

{¶ 3} On March 11, 2024, the trial court sentenced Mauch to serve an indefinite

term of nine to 13-and-one-half years in prison, less 152 days of jail-time credit. The trial

court also ordered Mauch to pay a mandatory $10,000 fine and notified Mauch that he

would be subject to a not less than two years, nor more than five years, of mandatory

postrelease control upon his release from prison.

{¶ 4} On April 8, 2024, Mauch filed a notice of appeal. Following briefing, on

January 8, 2025, Mauch's appeal was submitted to this court for consideration. Mauch's

appeal now properly before this court for decision, Mauch has raised the following single

assignment of error for review.

{¶ 5} THE DEFENDANT'S PLEA WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT OR

VOLUNTARY BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO ADVISE HIM OF HIS

TRUNCATED APPELLATE RIGHTS.

{¶ 6} In his single assignment of error, Mauch argues his guilty plea was not

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the trial court failed to advise him

as part of its Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy that, by pleading guilty, he was waiving certain of

his appellate rights, including his right to challenge the trial court's decisions to deny his

-2- Madison CA2024-04-008

various pretrial motions. Therefore, according to Mauch, because "the trial court made

no mention of any waiver or preservation of appellate rights whatsoever" as part of its

Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily

entered, thereby requiring the vacation of his guilty plea.

{¶ 7} However, as this court has stated previously, "[t]he failure to inform a

defendant that a guilty plea waives certain rights on appeal is not one of the specifically

enumerated rights the trial court is required to discuss during the Crim.R. 11 colloquy."

State v. Reynolds, 2018-Ohio-4942, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.); State v. Alvarez, 2020-Ohio-5183,

¶ 23 ("Crim.R. 11(C)(2) does not contain any language requiring a trial court to inform

defendants of their appellate rights, or lack thereof, before accepting a plea."); State v.

Atkinson, 2006-Ohio-5806, ¶ 22 (rejecting appellant's claim "that his plea was not entered

in a knowing, voluntary and intelligent manner because the trial court failed to advise him

of his right to appeal at the plea hearing" as "the trial court had no duty to so advise

appellant until the sentencing hearing"). The trial court, therefore, was not required to

advise Mauch of his truncated appellate rights at the time of accepting his guilty plea in

this case. State v. Moxley, 2012-Ohio-2572, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). Accordingly, the trial court

made no error.

{¶ 8} Moreover, when considering Mauch is, in fact, appealing from his guilty plea

by arguing that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered, any such

error the trial court may have made by failing to advise Mauch of his limited appellate

rights as part of its Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy would be harmless given the lack of any

resulting prejudice to Mauch. This is particularly true in this case when considering Mauch

has failed to identify any other alleged error that could have been remedied had Mauch

-3- Madison CA2024-04-008

been advised of his appellate rights as part of the trial court's Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy.

In the context of a plea hearing, "[t]his court has previously rejected claims where there

is a failure to identify prejudice regarding the notification of appellate rights." Reynolds at

¶ 13. Therefore, finding no merit to Mauch's argument raised herein, Mauch's single

assignment of error lacks merit and is overruled.

{¶ 9} Judgment affirmed.

BYRNE, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

-4-