[Cite as State v. Grayer,
2019-Ohio-3511.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
STATE OF OHIO, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
No. 107653
v. :
CORNELL RUSSELL GRAYER, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 29, 2019
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CR-18-627031-A
Appearances:
Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Brandon A. Piteo, Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, for appellee.
Mark A. Stanton, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and
David M. King, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.:
Appellant Cornell Grayer (“Grayer”) appeals from the trial court’s
judgment, entered after guilty pleas, sentencing him to five years incarceration.
Grayer contends his pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently made, in
violation of Crim.R. 11. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In March 2018, Grayer was named in a six-count indictment for
charges stemming from two robberies that occurred on February 23, 2018, and
March 9, 2018. Grayer pleaded not guilty to the indictment on March 28, 2018.
On July 9, 2018, Grayer withdrew his previously entered not guilty
plea, and he pleaded guilty as follows: (1) amended Count 1 — robbery, in violation
of R.C. 2911.02(A)(2), with forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417, and
(2) amended Count 4 — aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. 2911.01(A)(1), with
a one-year firearm specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.141 and forfeiture
specifications pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417. In exchange for his guilty pleas, the state
agreed to remove the firearm specifications on Count 1, the three-year firearm
specification on Count 4, and to dismiss Counts 2, 3, 5, and 6. The court accepted
Grayer’s plea and found him guilty. The court ordered a presentence investigation
report; drug, alcohol, and mental health assessments; and scheduled a sentencing
hearing.
During the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a five-year
sentence — four years on Count 1, robbery, to be served concurrently with a four-
year sentence on Count 4, aggravated robbery, in addition to Count 4’s one-year
firearm specification to be served prior to and consecutive to the four-year base
sentence under Count 4.
Grayer now appeals, raising two assignments of error for our review:
I. The trial court erred when it did not determine that the defendant
understood the nature of the offenses, the effects of the plea, and that
he was waiving certain constitutionally guaranteed trial rights by
pleading guilty in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I Section 10 of the
Ohio Constitution and Ohio Crim.R. 11.
II. Defendant Cornell Grayer was denied effective assistance of counsel
in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.
The purpose of Crim.R. 11(C) is to provide the defendant with relevant
information so that he can make a voluntary and intelligent decision whether to
plead guilty. State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 480,
423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). Before
accepting a guilty plea in a felony case, a court must comply with Crim.R. 11(C) and
“conduct an oral dialogue with the defendant to determine that the plea is voluntary
and the defendant understands the nature of the charges and the maximum penalty
involved, and to personally inform the defendant of the constitutional guarantees he
is waiving by entering a guilty plea.” State v. Martin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 92600
and 92601,
2010-Ohio-244, ¶ 5.
A trial court must strictly comply with the Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c)
requirements that relate to the waiver of constitutional rights. State v. Veney, 120
Ohio St.3d 176,
2008-Ohio-5200,
897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 18. With respect to the
nonconstitutional requirements of Crim.R. 11, set forth in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and
(b), reviewing courts consider whether there was substantial compliance with the
rule. State v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106542,
2018-Ohio-4327, ¶ 8.
“‘Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances the
defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is
waiving.’”
Id., quoting State v. Nero,
56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108,
564 N.E.2d 474 (1990);
State v. Stewart,
51 Ohio St.2d 86,
364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977). Additionally, before a
plea will be vacated due to a violation of the defendant’s nonconstitutional rights,
the defendant must show prejudice. Martin at ¶ 7. “The test for prejudice is whether
the plea would have otherwise been made.”
Id., citing
Nero at 108.
“The standard for reviewing whether the trial court accepted a plea in
compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) is a de novo standard of review.” State v. Cardwell,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92796, 2009-Ohio-6827, ¶ 26, citing Stewart. “‘It requires
an appellate court to review the totality of the circumstances and determine whether
the plea hearing was in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C).’” State v. Hudson-Bey, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104245,
2016-Ohio-7722, ¶ 7, quoting Cardwell at ¶ 26, citing
Stewart.
In his first assignment of error, Grayer contends his pleas were not
made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently because prior to accepting his pleas,
(1) the trial court did not ask Grayer whether he understood the constitutional rights
he was being asked to waive, (2) the trial court did not ask whether Grayer waived
each individual constitutional right, but enumerated all of the applicable
constitutional protections and then asked whether the defendant was willing to give
up those rights and enter a guilty plea, and (3) the trial court utilized a group-plea
hearing.
At Grayer’s sentencing hearing, the trial court obtained pleas from
three, unrelated defendants in a group-plea setting. The transcript suggests the
pleas were consolidated because the court was behind schedule on the day of the
hearing.
The following exchange was intended to notify the defendants of the
constitutional rights they would be waiving by entering guilty pleas:
THE COURT: Do you understand that by entering a plea of guilty in
this case, you’re giving up certain constitutional and other legal rights?
Mr. Grayer?
DEFENDANT GRAYER: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Tanks?
DEFENDANT TANKS: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. McKenzie?
DEFENDANT MCKENZIE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: As to the rights that you’re going to be giving up, there
are six of them. And I’m going to read them to each of you.
You have the right to a trial by a jury or you can waive that right and
have your case tried to me as the judge without a jury.
Now, this right and the other five rights I’m going to be reading to you
are trial-related rights that if you did not enter this plea, you would have
the right — these rights if we went to trial.
So by entering the plea, you need to give up these rights. And in order
for you to know what they are, these trial-related rights that you’ll be
giving up.
I’ve also read to you — I’ve read to you the first one. I’ll read to you the
remaining five.
You also have the right to have an attorney represent you at trial. If you
can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you at no
cost.
You have the right to require the State of Ohio to put on evidence that
would establish your guilt by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
You have the right to confront witnesses who would testify against you.
And by that I mean you would be in the courtroom. A witness would be
testifying in the witness box. You would have the opportunity to listen
to that testimony, and your attorney would have the opportunity to
cross-examine that witness to test the truthfulness of that testimony.
You also have the right to have witnesses come down and testify for
you, and you would do that by having these witnesses come in
voluntarily to testify for your benefit. If that person is unwilling to do
that for you, then I would issue an order or your attorney would issue a
subpoena requiring them to come down and do so.
And then, finally, you have the right not to testify at trial. If you elect to
remain silent during your trial, your silence cannot be used against you
in any form or fashion to try to prove your guilt.
Also, you cannot be forced to testify against yourself. On the other
hand, if you want to testify, you have the absolute right to do so.
Now, as to each one of these rights that I’ve mentioned to you, are you
willing to give up each one of these rights in order to enter into the plea
for your particular cases? Mr. Grayer?
DEFENDANT GRAYER: Yes.
THE COURT: And, Ms. Tanks?
DEFENDANT TANKS: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. McKenzie?
DEFENDANT MCKENZIE: Yes, sir, your Honor.
(Tr. 29-32.)
The Ohio Supreme Court has stated “the best method of informing a
defendant of his constitutional rights is to use the language contained in
Crim.R. 11(C), stopping after each right and asking the defendant whether he
understands the right and knows that he is waiving it by pleading guilty.” Ballard,
66 Ohio St.2d at 479,
423 N.E.2d 115. However, trial courts need not recite
Crim.R. 11(C) verbatim and failure to utilize the exact language does not invalidate
the plea.
Id. at 480. “Rather, the focus, upon review, is whether the record shows
that the trial court explained or referred to the right in a manner reasonably
intelligible to that defendant.”
Id.
The trial court’s colloquy, as cited above, satisfies the rigors of
Crim.R. 11(C)(2). The court advised Grayer that he was waiving his rights (1) to a
jury trial, (2) to confront witnesses against him, (3) to have a compulsory process
for obtaining witnesses in his favor, (4) to require the state to prove his guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt, and (5) to remain silent and not testify, without comment on
the fact that he did not testify. “Although it is strongly recommended that a trial
judge stop after naming each constitutional right and ask if the defendant
subjectively understands that right as just explained, the failure to do so will not
necessarily invalidate a plea.” State v. Donaldson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106812,
2018-Ohio-4872, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Holt, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21835, 2004-
Ohio-3252, ¶ 11, citing
Ballard at 479-480. A plea is not invalidated because the
trial judge did not stop and ask the defendant whether he waived each individual
right. State v. Parks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86312,
2006-Ohio-1352, ¶ 11. Lastly,
there is no prohibition on a trial court conducting a group-plea hearing. State v.
Strimpel, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 106129,
2018-Ohio-1628, ¶ 12. A group-plea is
common practice in the trial courts and does not impact whether a defendant’s guilty
plea is entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily so long as the court’s actions
comply with Crim.R. 11(C). Strimpel at ¶ 13.
We cannot say under the instant facts that the trial judge failed to
explain the waiver of Grayer’s constitutional rights in a reasonably intelligible
manner. The trial judge began the hearing by positioning the defendants in a certain
order that he would follow throughout the proceeding for the court’s convenience.
The prosecutor explained each defendant’s plea agreement, starting with Grayer.
Defense counsel confirmed the plea agreements’ accuracy. The trial judge explained
the defendants would be giving up their constitutional rights by entering a guilty
plea and received confirmation from each defendant, including Grayer, that he
understood this was the impact of his guilty plea.1 The trial judge then listed the
constitutional rights in a clear and concise manner. The trial judge referenced and
explained the constitutional rights and their waiver in a manner reasonably
intelligible to Grayer thereby satisfying the strictures of Crim.R. 11(C)(2). Parks.
1The facts of the instant case are distinguishable from this court’s recent decisions
in State v. Miller, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105363, 2018-Ohio-843, State v. Lozada, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 107827, 2019-Ohio-3040, and State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
107956. In Miller, Lozada, and Smith, the trial courts clearly instructed the defendants-appellants of their constitutional rights relative to a right to trial, but failed to determine
whether the defendants-appellants understood those rights would be waived upon
entering guilty pleas. Absent the defendants-appellants’ acknowledgment that their
guilty pleas would result in a waiver of the enumerated constitutional rights, the trial
courts did not strictly comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and the guilty
pleas were invalid. Here, the trial court specifically instructs Grayer that by entering a
guilty plea he waives the identified constitutional rights and Grayer acknowledges his
understanding that his guilty plea will result in a waiver of those rights.
For the foregoing reasons, we find the trial court strictly complied
with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C) in accepting Grayer’s waiver of his
constitutional rights and we overrule his first assignment of error.
Because we found the trial court did not err in accepting Grayer’s
guilty plea, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to ensure Grayer’s
constitutional rights were properly explained prior to entering a guilty plea. Grayer
was not deprived of effective assistance of counsel and his second assignment of
error is overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the
common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s
conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case
remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, JUDGE
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, A.J., and
ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR
