Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case Nos. CR-554926, CR-562876, CR-562940, and CR-565884
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Michael L. Wolpert
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor, BY: James A. Gutierrez Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center
BEFORE: Rocco, J., Stewart, A.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
KENNETH A.ROCCO, JUDGE
(¶ 1} After entering pleas of no contest in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-562940 to 1 count of grand theft, 54 counts of tampering with governmental records, 54 counts of forgery, 18 counts of tampering with odometers, and 18 counts of selling vehicles with altered odometers, and entering guilty pleas in Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-554926, CR-565884, and CR-562876, respectively, to one count of grand theft, one count of theft, and one count of misdemeanor menacing, defendant-appellant Michael Mankins appeals from his convictions and the four and one-half year prison sentence the trial court imposed.
(¶ 2} Mankins presents two assignments of error. This court cannot decipher the argument he makes in his first, although it seems to challenge his sentence. In his second, Mankins claims his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in securing his pleas.
(¶ 3} This court has reviewed the record of these cases and finds that plain error occurred in sentencing. The trial court neither followed the requirements of R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) at the sentencing hearing in imposing consecutive sentences, nor entered journal entries that reflected what occurred at the sentencing hearing, nor imposed consequences should Mankins fail to comply with the "probation" imposed on some of the counts in CR-562940. Therefore, even though his argument is meaningless, Mankins's first assignment of error is sustained.
(¶4} However, the record fails to support Mankins's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. His second assignment of error is consequently overruled. Mankins's convictions and sentences in CR-554926, CR-562876, CR-565884, and CR-562940 are affirmed, but his sentences are vacated and these cases are remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
(¶5} The record reflects Mankins was indicted in these cases in 2011 and 2012 as a result of his activities in operating a used car dealership. In CR-554926, he was charged with one count of passing bad checks and one count of grand theft. In CR-562876, he was charged with five counts of intimidation. In CR-565884, he was charged with one count of passing bad checks and one count of theft.
(¶ 6} In CR-562940, Mankins was charged together with his wife. The counts that pertained to him charged him with 1 count of grand theft, 54 counts of tampering with records, 54 counts of forgery, 18 counts of tampering with odometers, and 18 counts of selling vehicles with altered odometers. Mankins entered pleas of not guilty at his arraignments and retained counsel to represent him and his wife.
(¶ 7} By October 2012, the parties notified the trial court that a plea agreement had been reached. As outlined by the prosecutor, in the three less-serious cases, in exchange for a dismissal of the other counts and an agreed amount of restitution, Mankins would plead guilty as follows: (1) in CR-554926 to a single count of grand theft; (2) in CR-562876 to Count 1, amended to a charge of menacing; and (3) in CR-565884, to a single count of theft.
(¶ 8} The trial court conducted a thorough colloquy with Mankins before accepting his pleas, finding him guilty, and dismissing the other charges. Then the parties turned their attention to Mankins's remaining case, viz., CR-562940.
(¶ 9} The prosecutor stated that Mankins and his wife would enter pleas of no contest to all the charges in the remaining case. The prosecutor set forth the amount of restitution involved. Defense counsel indicated that ...