[Cite as State v. Richie,
2014-Ohio-1114.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO :
Plaintiff-Appellee : C.A. CASE NO. 25681
v. : T.C. NO. 12CR3800
STEPHEN M. RICHIE : (Criminal appeal from
Common Pleas Court)
Defendant-Appellant :
:
..........
OPINION
Rendered on the 21st day of March , 2014.
..........
MICHELE D. PHIPPS, Atty. Reg. No. 0069829, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W.
Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
KATE L. BOWLING, Atty. Reg. No. 0084442, 111 W. First Street, Suite 518, Dayton, Ohio
45402
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
..........
DONOVAN, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Stephen Richie, was charged by Bill of Information
with one count of Burglary in violation of R. C. 2911.12(A)(2), a felony in the second
degree. On February 8, 2013, Mr. Richie entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense. On
2
February 20, 2013 Mr. Richie was sentenced to two years imprisonment with jail time credit
of sixty days, three years post-release control supervision, and he was ordered to pay court
costs. On March 14, 2013, Mr. Richie timely filed the present appeal.
{¶ 2} On July 18, 2013, appointed counsel for Mr. Richie filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
87 S.Ct. 1396,
18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that there
were no meritorious issues presented on appeal. By Magistrate’s Order on July 19, 2013, this
court advised Mr. Richie that his appointed counsel had filed an Anders brief and informed
him of the significance of an Anders brief. Further, this court invited Mr. Richie to file a pro
se brief within sixty (60) days of the Magistrate’s Order to assign issues for review by this
court. Mr. Richie filed multiple motions for extension of time but has ultimately failed to file
a timely brief in response.
{¶ 3} Although Mr. Richie’s appointed counsel asserts that there are no arguably
meritorious issues raised on appeal, she identifies one potential assignment of error, to wit:
{¶ 4} “APPELLANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT ENTERED KNOWINGLY,
INTELLIGENTLY, AND VOLUNTARILY AS REQUIRED BY LAW.”
{¶ 5} Guilty pleas must be knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made so as
not to violate the Constitutional rights of the accused. See State v. Jabbaar,
2013-Ohio-1655,
991 N.E.2d 290, ¶ 25 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Engle,
74 Ohio St.3d 525,
527,
660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). A trial court may show that a guilty plea was made knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily by complying with Crim. R. 11(C)(2). See State v. Bailey, 2d
Dist. Clark No. 2103 CA 37,
2014-Ohio-639, ¶ 12, citing State v. Fisher, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 23992, 2011–Ohio–629, ¶ 16.
3
{¶ 6} Crim. R. 11(C)(2) provides:
{¶ 7} In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no
contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest 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 and of the maximum penalty
involved, and, if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or
for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.
(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant
understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that the court,
upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentence.
(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant understands
that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront
witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in the defendant's favor, and to require the state to prove the
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant
cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.
{¶ 8} This court has reviewed the plea and sentencing transcript, in addition to
the Pre-Sentence Investigation, and concludes that the trial court scrupulously followed
Crim. R. 11(C)(2) in its entirety. The trial court engaged Mr. Richie in a full and thorough
colloquy prior to the acceptance of his guilty plea, including questions regarding his age,
year in school, mental capacity and whether he understood the potential sentences he could
4
face. When Mr. Richie was asked directly if he was entering his plea voluntarily, he
answered in the affirmative. Mr. Richie was thoroughly advised of all the rights he was
waiving by virtue of his guilty plea and he indicated he understood each. There is no
indication in the record that Mr. Richie’s plea of guilty was anything but knowing,
intelligent and voluntary, nor is there any indication that the trial court coerced his guilty
plea in any way. Accordingly, we find that this potential assignment of error is without
arguable merit.
{¶ 9} Pursuant to our responsibilities under Anders, this court has conducted an
independent review of the record and concludes that there are no arguably meritorious issues
for appeal and that this appeal is entirely frivolous.
{¶ 10} Accordingly, the Judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.
..........
FAIN, J. and HALL, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Michele D. Phipps
Kate L. Bowling
Stephen M. Richie
Hon. Dennis J. Adkins
