State v. Burton

1

2023-Ohio-1596

State of Ohio Appellee v. Shasta Burton Appellant

No. L-22-1105

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas

May 12, 2023

Trial Court No. CR0202101931

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lauren Carpenter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Anthony J. Richardson, II, for appellant.

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

DUHART, J.

{¶ 1} This is a delayed appeal filed by appellant Shasta Burton, from the March 2, 2022 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

{¶ 2} Appellant sets forth three assignments of error:

1.The trial court committed error by finding appellant guilty without a factual basis established supporting the crime.

2.The trial court committed error by accepting appellant's plea, where his plea could not have been made knowingly or intelligently.

3.The trial court committed error by imposing sanctions fines and/or costs on appellant, where the record does not support such imposition.

Facts

{¶ 3} On June 24, 2021, appellant was indicted on three charges: felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D), a first degree felony, with a firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2941.145(A), (B), (C) and (F); discharge of a firearm on or near prohibited premises in violation of R.C. 2923.162(A)(3) and (C)(2), a third degree felony, with a firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2941.145(A), (B), (C) and (F); and receiving stolen property in violation of R.C. 2913.51(A) and (C), a fourth degree felony, with a firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2941.141(A), (B), (C) and (F).

{¶ 4} On January 13, 2022, appellant executed a plea form and entered a plea of guilty to felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(2) and (D), a felony of the first degree, with a one-year firearm specification in violation of R.C. 2941.141(A), (B), (C) and (F). The trial court accepted the guilty plea and found appellant guilty.

{¶ 5} On February 7, 2022, appellant was sentenced to a minimum prison term of three years and a maximum indefinite prison term of four and one-half years.

{¶ 6} Appellant appealed, seeking to have his sentence vacated.

{¶ 7} We will examine appellant's first and second assignments of error together.

First Assignment of Error

{¶ 8} Appellant argues "it was contrary to law and plain error where the trial court failed to require a factual basis demonstrating the elements of felonious assault because appellant protested his innocence [at sentencing]." He contends there was never a factual basis asserted by the state, no recitation of facts by the state and no other clear indication as to what the evidence would have demonstrated at trial. He asserts that the state, at the plea hearing, "never provided a factual basis, despite discussing the charges of the indictment, the amendments of the indictment, and the recommendation of sentence for purposes of judicial release."

{¶ 9} Appellant submits his counsel, at sentencing, was the only person to present a slight recitation of the facts, and the factual basis provided by his counsel did not support that appellant committed felonious assault, and the state never supplemented the record with additional facts to demonstrate that he committed the alleged crime. He cites to In re R.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91923, 2009-Ohio-1255, in support of his argument that the elements of felonious assault are not met when warning shots are fired in the air.

{¶ 10} The state counters appellant's guilty plea provided the necessary proof of the elements of the crime, thus the trial court was relieved of its responsibility to determine whether a factual basis existed to support the plea.

Second Assignment of Error

{¶ 11} Appellant argues the trial court erred by accepting his "plea of guilt as knowing and intelligent, where no basis supported the crime alleged in the indictment." He asserts the plea he entered was not knowing and intelligent because he clearly did not have an understanding of the nature of the charge. Appellant contends had the state provided a factual basis to support the crime, he would not have pleaded guilty because his actions could never have amounted to felonious assault. In support, he cites to State v. Riddle, 2017-Ohio-1199, 88 N.E.3d 475 (2d Dist.) and State v. Davis, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-49, 2019-Ohio-1904.

Law

Guilty Pleas

{¶ 12} Crim.R. 11 provides, in pertinent part:

(B) Effect of Guilty * * *Pleas. With reference to the * * * offenses to which the plea is entered:

(1) The plea of guilty is a complete admission of the defendant's guilt.

(C) Pleas of Guilty * * * in Felony Cases.

(2) In felony cases the court * * * shall not accept a plea of guilty * * * without first addressing the defendant personally * * * and doing all of the following:

(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges * * *.

{¶ 13} "A trial court is not required pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C) to set forth any factual basis for a guilty plea during a plea hearing." State v. Rothenbuhler, 6th Dist. Williams No. WM-15-008, 2016-Ohio-2869, ¶ 6. "'Implicit within Crim.R. 11(C), is the idea that a guilty plea constitutes a full admission of factual guilt that obviates the need for a fact-finding trial on the charges.'" (Citation omitted.). Id. See also State v. Wilson, 58 Ohio St.2d 52, 388 N.E.2d 745 (1979), paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶ 14} Prior to accepting a guilty plea, a trial court is not obligated to engage in a detailed recitation of the elements of the charges in order to ensure a defendant understands the nature of those charges. State v. Deeb, 6th Dist. Erie No. E-12-052, 2013-Ohio-5175, ¶ 17, citing State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, 810 N.E.2d 927, ¶ 57. The Supreme Court of Ohio, in Fitzpatrick, explained:

[T]he Constitution does not require that a trial court explain the elements of the charge, at least where the record contains a representation by defense counsel that the nature of the offense has been explained to the accused.

See Henderson [v. Morgan], 426 U.S. [637] at 647, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 [(1976)]. See 5 LaFave, Israel & King, Criminal Procedure (2d Ed.1999) 164, Section 21.4(c). "Apart from the small class of rights that require specific advice from the court under Rule 11(c), it is the responsibility of defense counsel to inform a defendant of * * * the attendant statutory and constitutional rights that a guilty plea would forgo." Libretti [v. United States], 516 U.S. [29] at 50-51, 116 S.Ct. 356, 133 L.Ed.2d 271 [(1995)].

Fitzpatrick at ¶ 57. In determining whether a defendant understood the nature of the charge, the appellate court considers the totality of the circumstances. Deeb at ¶ 17.

Case Law Cited by Appellant

{¶ 15} In In re R.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91923, 2009-Ohio-1255, R.W., a juvenile, was charged with two counts of felonious assault, each with firearm specifications, after he stood outside of a home with people inside, pointed a gun straight up in the air and fired it four or five times. Id. at ¶ 2, 3. An adjudicatory hearing was held and the court found R.W. delinquent of the two charges. Id. at ¶ 2, 7. R.W. appealed.

{¶ 16} The appellate court found the state failed to produce sufficient evidence that R.W. knowingly attempted to cause physical harm to the people in the home. Id. at ¶ 23. The court reasoned "[although bullets shot in the air will obviously come down somewhere, [the two people] could not have been injured when the bullets came down. As there was no risk of injury to the victims alleged in the indictment, R.W. did not knowingly attempt to cause them physical harm when he fired his gun into the air." Id. at ¶ 21.

{¶ 17} In Davis, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-49, 2019-Ohio-1904, ¶ 30, the Second District Court of Appeals set forth:

Even though the State is not required to articulate the factual basis for a felony guilty plea, we have found that a defendant's guilty plea may be "rendered less than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary" if the State voluntarily undertakes to provide a statement of the underlying facts that is deficient as to some element of the offense, and the defendant's trial attorney advises the defendant to plead guilty despite that deficiency. See Riddle[, 2017-Ohio-1199, 88 N.E.3d 475] at ¶ 39-40.

Appellant's Plea Form

{¶ 18} The Plea of Guilty form, signed by appellant and his counsel on January 13, 2022, provides in pertinent part:

I withdraw my former not guilty plea and enter a plea of GUILTY to:

Offense & R.C. Section & Degree Felonious Assault With 1 Year Firearm Specification, R.C. 290[3].11(A)(2)(D) & 2941.141(A), (B), (C), and (F)[,] Felony of the 1^st Degree

Possible Fine

$20,000.00

Voluntary Plea

The charges have been explained to me by my attorney and the Court. I understand the nature of the changes and the possible defenses I might have. I am satisfied with my attorney's advice, counsel and competence. * * * I enter this plea voluntarily.

Plea Hearing

{¶ 19} At appellant's change of plea hearing, the following colloquy took place, in pertinent part:

THE COURT: * * *[S]tate your name for the record[.]

THE DEFENDANT: Shasta Burton.

THE COURT: And how old are you?

THE DEFENDANT: 42 years old.

THE COURT: * * * How far did you go in school?

THE DEFENDANT: Sophomore in college.

THE COURT: * * * So you can read, write, and understand the English language as you and I are speaking it?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: All right. Now, the State of Ohio did read into the record the plea agreement, that you would plea to that felonious assault in Count 1, but with a one-year gun specification * * *. So you're looking then

...