State v. Whiteside, 23891 (5-14-2008)
State v. Whiteside, 23891 (5-14-2008)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 3} The juvenile court consolidated the matters for probable cause hearing relating to the State's motions to relinquish jurisdiction. The State amended the murder count to one count of attempted murder in violation of R.C.
{¶ 4} On February 13, 2007, Whiteside was indicted by the Grand Jury on one count of attempted murder (F-1), with a firearm specification in violation of R.C.
{¶ 5} In lieu of trial, Whiteside appeared in court on July 19, 2007, and, as a result of plea negotiations, pled guilty as charged to attempted murder and the corresponding gun specification, and to participating in criminal gang activity. The charges of felonious assault and the corresponding gun specification, possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana were dismissed. Prior to accepting the plea, the trial court engaged in colloquy with Whiteside, setting forth the constitutional and statutory rights he would be waiving by entering a plea. Whiteside asserted his understanding of the nature of the charges and possible maximum sentences, as well as the rights he would be waiving.
{¶ 6} The trial court referred the matter to the Adult Probation Department for a pre-sentence investigation report with victim impact statement. On August 20, 2007, the trial court sentenced Whiteside to 8 years for attempted murder, 3 years for the gun specification and 4 years for participating in criminal gang *Page 4 activity, with all sentences to run consecutively for a total of 15 years in prison. Whiteside timely appeals, setting forth one assignment of error for review.
"[WHITESIDE'S] CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A FAIR PROCEEDING WAS VIOLATED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT SENTENCED HIM TO CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WITHOUT NOTIFYING HIM PRIOR TO HIS PLEA THAT CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES COULD BE IMPOSED FOR THE ATTEMPTED MURDER AND PARTICIPATING IN CRIMINAL GANG CHARGES."
{¶ 7} Whiteside argues that the trial court erred by failing to inform him that he might be sentenced to consecutive sentences on the charges of attempted murder and participating in criminal gang activity. Specifically, Whiteside asserts that his guilty plea to the charges was unknowing and involuntary as not in compliance with Crim.R. 11 because the trial court failed to inform him of the possibility of consecutive sentences. This Court disagrees.
{¶ 8} The Ohio Supreme Court long ago addressed this issue. The high court stated that Crim.R. 11(C) "fully encompasses [the] procedural requirements established by the United States Constitution" in requiring that the trial court ensure that a criminal defendant has knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights before entering a guilty plea. State v.Johnson (1988),
"[N]either the United States Constitution nor the Ohio Constitution requires that in order for a guilty plea to be voluntary a defendant *Page 5 must be told the maximum total of the sentences he faces, or that the sentence could be imposed consecutively." Id. at 133.
In summation, the Ohio Supreme Court held:
"Failure to inform a defendant who pleads guilty to more than one offense that the court may order him to serve any sentences imposed consecutively, rather than concurrently, is not a violation of Crim.R.11(C)(2), and does not render the plea involuntary." Id. at syllabus.
{¶ 9} In this case, the trial court personally addressed Whiteside to determine whether his plea was knowingly and voluntarily made. Neither Whiteside nor his counsel objected to any informative commentary by the trial court. See Johnson,
Judgment affirmed.
*Page 6The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to appellant.
*Page 1SLABY, J. MOORE, J. CONCUR.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.