State v. Leib

1

2024-Ohio-1081

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAYNE LEIB, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 23CA4

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Meigs

March 18, 2024

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT

James K. Stanley, Meigs County Prosecuting Attorney, Pomeroy, Ohio for appellee.

Christopher Bazeley, Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant. ^[1]

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

Peter B. Abele, Judge

{¶1} This is an appeal from a Meigs County Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence for aggravated murder.

{¶2} Wayne Leib, defendant below and appellant herein, assigns two errors for review:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"BECAUSE LIEB HAD TO SPECULATE AS TO WHETHER HE HAD THE INTENT TO COMMIT AGGRAVATED MURDER, HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, OR

INTELLIGENTLY GIVEN."

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"THE TRIAL COURT'S SENTENCE IS CONTRARY TO LAW BECAUSE IT CONSIDERED LIEB'S SILENCE AS A LACK OF REMORSE."

{¶3} On September 30, 2022, appellant, who was homeless, rode his bicycle to the victim's residence and killed the victim with a firearm. Eyewitnesses heard a gunshot and observed appellant hurriedly leave the residence on his bicycle. When law enforcement found appellant, another eyewitness stated that appellant admitted that he killed the victim and hid the firearm at that location. Appellant later said that he killed the victim because he believed the victim molested children.

{¶4} In November 2022, a Meigs County Grand Jury returned an indictment that charged appellant with one count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A) and one count of murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A), both with firearm specifications and both unclassified felonies. Appellant pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) and the trial court ordered an assessment.

{¶5} Appellant's psychological evaluation revealed that he had been hospitalized for 12 days in 2019 and has a history of bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and "self-injurious behavior consisting of punching himself and using heroin to cope with hallucinations." Appellant has "been homeless and * * * using substances," reported hearing voices telling him to hurt himself, reported feeling that he is "being watched, targeted, and followed for the last three years," and believed "smoke-like figures" that were "demon[s] in the Bible hundreds of years ago" put "thoughts in his head for years."

{¶6} The evaluation further provided that appellant "spoke coherently and relevantly and had no indication of a formal thought disorder at the time of the interview." In addition to daily illicit drug use, clinical impressions included that appellant "has a severe mental illness, schizoaffective disorder, which in his case involves hallucinations, delusions, and magical thinking, as well as mood symptoms, including unstable mood, periods of mania, depression, and anxiety." The evaluation also revealed that appellant stated that he killed the victim to avenge the victim's alleged victimization of children. The report specified that appellant fled the scene, hid incriminating evidence, and refused to speak when interrogated. The evaluation concluded that appellant "had a severe mental disease, but not a mental defect, at the time of the offense, but that a severe mental disease or defect did not cause the defendant to fail to know the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offense charged."

{¶7} At the change of plea hearing, appellant indicated that he consulted with his attorney, who read the plea agreement to him, and expressed satisfaction with his representation. Appellant also acknowledged that he understood the plea agreement, the allegations contained in the indictment, the rights he waived with his guilty plea, and possible penalties. The trial court specified that the sentence is mandatory, that appellant is ineligible for community control and judicial release, must pay costs, and, if released, will be on parole for the remainder of his life.

{¶8} When the trial court questioned appellant about the underlying facts, appellant stated, "Uh, just basically like what it said. I, you know, I shot Dwayne Qualls. Took his life on that day." When the trial court asked, "So, [you] shot him with the intent of killing him," appellant replied, "I suppose so, yea." Consequently, appellant withdrew his not guilty plea and pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A).

{¶9} After the plea hearing, the trial court immediately proceeded to sentencing. After the state and the defense spoke, the court asked, "Mr. Leib, do you have anything to say on your own behalf or to present any information in mitigation of punishment?" Appellant replied, "no." The court asked, "[d]on't want to say anything at all?" Appellant replied, "No, ma'am."

{¶10} In reviewing the sentencing factors, the trial court noted, "Um, the Court has not had the opportunity to look at whether or not there's remorse because there's no * * * no statement from the defendant, although he has readily admitted the offense, uh, it sounds like and taken responsibility here today, has not tried to blame others or anything like that."

{¶11} After consideration, the trial court (1) sentenced appellant to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole, (2) dismissed count two and the gun specifications without prejudice, and (3) ordered appellant to pay all costs. This appeal followed.

I.

{¶12} In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that he did not enter a knowing, intelligent and voluntary guilty plea because he had "to speculate as to whether he had the intent to commit the offense." In particular, appellant refers to his response to the trial court's questioning about his intent to kill the victim "I suppose so, yea," at sentencing as speculative.

{¶13} "Because a no-contest or guilty plea involves a waiver of constitutional rights, a defendant's decision to enter a plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary." Crim.R. 11, State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1, 2020-Ohio-2765, 164 N.E.3d 286, ¶ 10, citing Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 28-29, 113 S.Ct. 517, 121 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992). Thus, if the defendant did not enter the plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, enforcement of that plea is unconstitutional. Id.

{¶14} Appellate courts apply a de novo standard of review when evaluating a plea's compliance with Crim.R. 11(C). State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990). Moreover, evidence of a written waiver form signed by the accused constitutes strong proof of a valid waiver. State v. Clark, 38 Ohio St.3d 252, 261, 527 N.E.2d 844 (1988). In the present case, appellant does not challenge the trial court's compliance with Crim.R. 11, but rather argues that due to his "speculative" response, he did not enter a knowing, intelligent, or voluntary guilty plea.

{¶15} In the case sub judice, appellant's signed written plea of guilty form is included in the record. Also, during the plea colloquy the trial court reviewed the elements of the charge, the possible sentence and asked appellant if he understood that his guilty plea waived his right to a jury trial, right not to testify against himself, right to confront witnesses, right to compulsory process, and right to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant responded that he did understand. The court further reviewed appellant's mental health and medication history and asked appellant if he entered his plea intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily. Appellant characterized the offense as "just basically like what it said. I, you know, I shot Dwayne Qualls. Took his life on that day." The court then asked, "So, shot him with the intent of killing him?" Appellant replied, "I suppose so, yea." After that, appellant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty to the aggravated murder charge.

{¶16} Appellant asserts that he did not enter a knowing, voluntary, or intelligent plea because his response to the trial court's inquiry indicated speculation regarding intent to commit the offense. Appellant argues that, when asked if he intended to kill the victim, he responded, "I suppose so." The record, however, indicates that appellant replied, "I suppose so, yea." The latter part of the phrase shows an affirmative response. Turning to the words, "I suppose so," the Supreme Court of Ohio has held that "[t]o determine the common, everyday meaning of a word, we have consistently used dictionary definitions." State v. Wells, 91 Ohio St.3d 32, 34, 740 N.E.2d 1097 (2001); Campus Bus Serv. v. Zaino, 98 Ohio St.3d 463, 2003-Ohio-1915, 786 N.E.2d 889, ¶ 21. Thus, a court may take judicial notice of definitions in standard dictionaries. Andrews v. Tax Comm. of Ohio, 135 Ohio St. 374, 21 N.E.2d 106 (1939). In addition to dictionary definitions, courts may also look to the "meaning that the word [] ha[s] acquired when * * * used in case law." Rancho Cincinnati Rivers, L.L.C. v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Revision, 165 Ohio St.3d 227, 2021-Ohio-2798, 177 N.E.3d 256, ¶ 21.

{¶17} The Online Oxford English Dictionary defines "suppose," inter alia, as "to hold as a belief or opinion; to believe in the truth of; to think, be of the opinion" and "[t]o assume (without reference to truth or falsehood) as a basis of argument, or for the purpose of tracing consequences; to frame as a hypothesis; to put as an imaginary case; to posit," and "[t]o believe as a certainty, know, understand." Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. "suppose, v.", September 2023. (accessed December 11, 2023). The online edition of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines "suppose" as a transitive verb meaning "a. to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal, b....