State v. Monaco

2021 Ohio 3888
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 29, 2021
Docket2021 AP 01 0002
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2021 Ohio 3888 (State v. Monaco) 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. Monaco, 2021 Ohio 3888 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Monaco, 2021-Ohio-3888.]

COURT OF APPEALS TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STATE OF OHIO JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J. Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J. -vs- Case No. 2021 AP 01 0002 JASON D. MONACO

Defendant-Appellant OPINION

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2020 CR 08 0318

JUDGMENT: Affirmed

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: October 29, 2021

APPEARANCES:

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant

RYAN STYER DONOVAN HILL PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 122 Market Avenue North KRISTINE W. BEARD Suite 101 ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR Canton, Ohio 44702 125 East High Avenue New Philadelphia, Ohio 44663 Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 01 0002 2

Wise, John, J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Jason D. Monaco appeals the October 23, 2020

Judgment of the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas which denied his motion to

withdraw his plea of guilty. Plaintiff-Appellee is the State of Ohio. The relevant facts

leading to this appeal are as follows.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On August 14, 2020, Appellant was indicted for three counts of Gross

Sexual Imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05, three counts of Sexual Imposition in

violation of R.C. 2907.06, one count of Kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01, one count

of Rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02, one count of Attempted Rape in violation of R.C.

2923.02 and 2907.02, four counts of Disseminating Matter Harmful to Juveniles in

violation of R.C. 2907.31, and two counts of Pandering Obscenity Involving a Minor or

Impaired Person in violation of R.C.2907.321.

{¶3} On August 20, 2020, Appellant appeared with counsel and entered a plea

of not guilty.

{¶4} On October 21, 2020, Appellant appeared, again with counsel, to change

his plea from not guilty on the indictment to guilty. Appellant filled out a signed Crim.R. 11

Change of Plea Form. The Form, in pertinent part, stated:

1) I have had the opportunity to discuss these matters with my

attorney;

2) That I have confidence in my attorney, and accept his

representation of me in this matter; Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 01 0002 3

3) That I have not been coerced or required to plead guilty, and

that no promises have been made to me by the Prosecuting Attorney, or

anyone representing the State of Ohio; EXCEPT that:

AGREED, that in exchange for pleading Guilty to the indictment, the

State will recommend that on Count Seven, this Court will impose upon the

Defendant an indefinite life sentence with no parole eligibility until he has

served 15 years; and that all other terms of remaining counts be served

concurrent to Count Seven for an aggregate prison term of 15 to life.

***

I have not been forced or threatened in any way to cause me to sign

and offer this plea. I offer this plea knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. I

have consulted with my attorney and have his advice and consent. I am

satisfied with the legal representation and advice I received from my

attorney.

{¶5} At the change of plea hearing, Appellant’s counsel advised the court he

reviewed the Crim.R. 11 change of plea form with Appellant. Based on those discussions,

Appellant signed the form and entered a plea of guilty to the indictment.

{¶6} During the colloquy the trial court reviewed the Crim.R. 11 change of plea

form with Appellant. Appellant acknowledged he signed the Crim.R. 11 form. The trial

court reviewed the charges in the indictment, the penalty agreed to for a guilty plea, and

asked if Appellant had any questions about the charges and sentence. The trial court also

advised Appellant of the Constitutional rights he was waiving. Appellant acknowledged

that he had no questions on the charges or sentence. He said he understood the charges Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 01 0002 4

and still wanted to plead guilty. After being fully advised of his rights, the charges against

him, and the penalties associated with those charges, Appellant entered a plea of guilty.

{¶7} Prior to sentencing, Appellee provided the trial court with a summary of the

facts of the case. Appellant had a close relationship with the victim and began molesting

her at an early age. Appellant filmed the victim without her knowledge while she showered

and engaged in sexual displays while in her presence. Appellant digitally penetrated the

victim’s vagina and made the victim touch his penis. Appellant locked victim in the

basement when she was six years old and would not let the victim out until she engaged

in sexual conduct with him.

{¶8} At age 13, Appellant forcibly held down the victim and attempted vaginal

intercourse with victim, but was interrupted when someone else entered the room.

Throughout this time, Appellant showed the victim adult and child pornography. Appellant

used a webcam to record himself sexually abusing the victim while simultaneously

watching a video of another adult abusing a child. A search of Appellant’s devices

revealed a plethora of child pornography.

{¶9} Appellant’s counsel indicated that Appellant acknowledged his behavior

and would like as much mental health assistance as possible.

{¶10} The trial court sentenced Appellant as follows: Counts 5 and 6 merge with

Counts 3 and 4 for the purposes of sentencing. Count 1, 60 months in prison; Count 2,

60 months in prison, Count 3, 18 months in prison; Count 4, 18 months in prison; Count

7, mandatory 15 years to life in prison; Count 8, mandatory 10 years to life in prison;

Count 9, 8 years in prison; Count 10, 18 months in prison; Count 11, 12 months in prison;

Count 12, 18 months in prison; Count 13, 180 days in prison; Count 14, 8 years in prison; Tuscarawas County, Case No. 2021 AP 01 0002 5

and Count 15, 8 years in prison. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently

for an aggregate sentence of 15 years to life.

{¶11} Appellant did not file an appeal from his conviction or sentence. Instead, on

October 29, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se motion to change his plea to not guilty and

appoint new counsel. Appellant alleged he was under duress and not of sound mind due

to extreme depression and anxiety when he signed his acknowledgment. He also alleged

that he did not understand the evidence against him as his attorney did not go through

the discovery documents with him. Appellant stated he was not guilty of the accusations.

{¶12} On November 30, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the pro se request

for Appellant to withdrawal his guilty plea. At the hearing, Appellant stated on the date of

the plea and sentencing he was very shaken. He acknowledged that he discussed with

counsel his plea, the rights he was waiving, and penalties he would be facing. Appellant

stated he did not review the discovery provided by Appellee with his attorney. He stated

he was suffering from anxiety and depression but was not under the influence of drugs or

alcohol the day of sentencing. Appellant did not submit a professional report to

substantiate his claim of suffering from depression, anxiety, or any other mental health

condition likely to impair his ability to voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly enter a plea

of guilty. Appellant acknowledged he reviewed the evidence extracted from his electronic

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

Related

Monaco v. Forshey
N.D. Ohio, 2025
Monaco v. Monaco
2023 Ohio 1869 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Monaco
2022 Ohio 2353 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 Ohio 3888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-monaco-ohioctapp-2021.