[Cite as State v. Nason,
2024-Ohio-5624.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-23-1306
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202302153
v.
Kendrid Nason DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: November 27, 2024
…
Julia Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Lorrie J. Rendle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
John Thebes, for appellant.
…
ZMUDA, J.
I. Introduction
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appeal from the Lucas County Court of
Common Pleas judgment of November 30, 2023, sentencing appellant, Kendrid Nason, to
an aggregate prison term of 6 to 8 ½ years, following his no contest plea to two of three
counts in the indictment. Finding no error, we affirm.
II. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On March 21, 2023, appellant accessed the phone of his live-in girlfriend,
C.D., and became angry when he noticed another man sent her text messages. Appellant
spent the next two hours punching, kicking, and choking C.D., using force and threats to
prevent her from leaving. At one point, C.D. lost consciousness and urinated herself. As a
result of the beating, C.D. sustained injuries that included bruising to her arms, legs, and
torso, fractured ribs, a lacerated liver, and an acute kidney injury. C.D. spent six days in
the hospital and several months in recovery, healing from the attack. Police interviewed
C.D. at the hospital on March 21, 2023, and filed a criminal complaint that same day.
{¶ 3} On April 3, 2023, the state filed an indictment, charging appellant with one
count of felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (D) in Lucas County
Common Pleas case No. CR 202301489. Appellant was arraigned and entered a plea of
not guilty.
{¶ 4} After additional investigation, on July 31, 2023, the state filed a superseding
indictment in case No. CR 202302153, charging appellant with Count 1: felonious assault
in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (D), a felony of the second degree; Count 2:
abduction in violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2) and (C), a felony of the third degree; and
Count 3: kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(3) and (C), a felony of the first
degree. Appellant was arraigned upon reindictment, and again entered a plea of not guilty.
2.
{¶ 5} On November 6, 2023, appellant entered a plea of no contest to Counts 1
and 2, with the state’s agreement to dismiss Count 3 at sentencing. The trial court entered
a dismissal of case No. CR 202301489.
{¶ 6} The trial court conducted a complete Crim.R. 11 colloquy at the plea
hearing, and appellant acknowledged each constitutional right he waived by entering his
plea. The trial court informed appellant of the maximum prison term and penalties he
faced by entering his plea, and throughout the colloquy, the trial court inquired of
appellant whether he understood and wished to proceed. At one point, the trial court
noted appellant’s demeanor, calling attention to appellant’s pause before responding in
the following exchange:
THE COURT: All right. Do you have any questions about anything I just
went over?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Do you now freely and voluntarily give up these rights and do
you feel it is in your best interest to enter this plea?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I understand the pause there. You may not like it, but that
question was very well articulated. You feel it is in your best interest to enter this plea?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Like I said, I understand. Mr. [prosecutor], if you could, the
facts for Count 1 and 2.
{¶ 7} The prosecutor then recited the facts that would have been proven at trial as
to Counts 1 and 2, and appellant raised no objection to these facts and did not waver in
his intent to enter the plea. Instead, the record of the plea hearing demonstrated that
appellant responded to every query by the trial court, each time communicating his
3.
understanding and indicating his waiver of rights and intent to enter the plea was
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
{¶ 8} The trial court accepted appellant’s plea, found him guilty, and continued the
matter until November 29, 2023, for a sentencing hearing.
{¶ 9} On November 28, 2023, appellant filed a sentencing memorandum, through
his trial counsel. Within his sentencing memorandum, appellant acknowledged the facts
underlying the charges against him, and indicated he took “responsibility for his actions
and will be accepting of the consequences.” Appellant presented additional facts,
including he discovered C.D.’s plan for a girls’ trip was a cover to spend time with her
male co-worker, and he lost his temper over the perceived betrayal by his long-term
girlfriend. Appellant acknowledged the seriousness of the injuries sustained by C.D., but
argued he turned himself in to police, his own mental health issues contributed to the
offenses, and he has sought help and remained compliant with terms of the protection
order and terms of his bond, awaiting disposition of the case. Appellant expressed his
remorse for his conduct and requested a non-prison sanction as sentence.
{¶ 10} At the sentencing hearing on November 29, appellant’s trial counsel
reiterated appellant’s acknowledgment of his conduct, his remorse, his mental health
treatment, and his request for a non-prison sanction as sentence. Appellant provided his
own statement to the trial court, apologizing to C.D. and to his family for “letting them
down” through his conduct. At sentencing, appellant embraced his culpability, with no
regrets articulated regarding his decision to enter the plea.
4.
{¶ 11} The trial court considered the record, the victim’s statement, the
presentence investigation report, and appellant’s sentencing memorandum and statements
in mitigation at the sentencing hearing. The trial court imposed an indefinite sentence of 5
to 7 ½ years as to Count 1, felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (D), a
felony of the second degree, and a sentence of 12 months as to Count 2: abduction in
violation of R.C. 2905.02(A)(2) and (C), a felony of the third degree. After making the
statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14, the trial court ordered the sentences to be served
consecutively, for an aggregate prison sentence of 6 to 8 ½ years. The trial court
dismissed Count 3 in the indictment at sentencing.
{¶ 12} Appellant filed a timely appeal.
III. Assignment of Error
{¶ 13} In challenging the judgment on appeal, appellant raises a single assignment
of error:
Appellant’s change of plea was not given to the trial court in a knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily manner in violation of Ohio Criminal Rule 11, the
United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution.
IV. Analysis
{¶ 14} In his sole assignment of error, appellant challenges the validity of his plea
of no contest, arguing the trial court’s notice of a pause, when asked whether appellant
believed the plea was in his best interest, demonstrated the plea was not knowing,
intelligent, or voluntary. Appellant does not otherwise argue that the trial court failed to
5.
explain any of his constitutional rights or failed to fully cover other “nonconstitutional”
aspects of the plea colloquy.
{¶ 15} “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.”
State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 10, citing Parke v. Raley,
506 U.S. 20, 28-29 (1992)
(additional citations omitted.). The procedures for accepting pleas are set forth at Crim.R.
11, requiring a trial court to personally address a defendant entering the plea to ensure an
adequate record for review to determine whether explanation was provided regarding the
rights and the consequences of the plea and to determine whether the plea was made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Id. at ¶ 11.
{¶ 16} Where, as in this case, no challenge is raised to the trial court’s explanation
of rights pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C), “a defendant is not entitled to have his plea vacated
unless he demonstrates he was prejudiced by a failure of the trial court to comply with the
provisions of Crim.R. 11(C).” Dangler at ¶ 16, citing State v. Nero,
56 Ohio St.3d 106,
108 (1990). In reviewing the plea, our inquiry is straightforward: “(1) has the trial court
complied with the relevant provision of the rule? (2) if the court has not complied fully
with the rule, is the purported failure of a type that excuses a defendant from the burden
of demonstrating prejudice? And (3) if a show of prejudice is required, has the defendant
met that burden?”
Dangler at ¶ 17.
{¶ 17} Appellant argues indecision throughout the plea colloquy based on a single
notice by the trial court of appellant’s pause after inquiry by the trial court whether
6.
appellant freely and voluntarily relinquished the rights just addressed and whether
appellant believed the plea was in his best interest. Appellant argues that the trial court
should have continued the matter to ensure appellant believed a no contest plea “was
really in his best interest.” Appellant cites to nothing in the record, however,
demonstrating indecision permeated the proceedings, let alone that the pause signaled
indecision as opposed to consideration of the trial court’s compound question.
Significantly, appellant makes no argument that, in the absence of the trial court’s failure
to more fully address the pause, the plea would not otherwise have been entered. Nero at
108.
{¶ 18} In response to the trial court’s notice of his pause, appellant reiterated that
he understood and voluntarily entered his plea. At no time during the proceedings did
appellant question the plea or attempt to withdraw his plea. Instead, appellant indicated
he had time to consider the plea and confer with counsel and wished to proceed with his
plea. With no dispute that the trial court complied with the requirements of Crim.R.
11(C), and no support for appellant’s claim of prejudice due to indecision, we find no
prejudice demonstrated, meriting reversal in this case.
{¶ 19} We therefore find appellant’s sole assignment of error not well-taken.
V. Conclusion
{¶ 20} Finding substantial justice has been done, we affirm the judgment of the
Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this
appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
7.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Christine E. Mayle, J.
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
JUDGE
Charles E. Sulek, P.J.
CONCUR JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
8.
