appeal from the Morgan County Court of Common Pleas, Case
Plaintiff-Appellee MARK HOWDYSHELL
Defendant-Appellant PETER CULTICE
JUDGES: Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P.J. Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
Appellant Mark Bumgardner appeals the October 13, 2015
judgment entry of the Morgan County Court of Common Pleas.
Appellee is the State of Ohio.
& Procedural History
An indictment was filed against appellant on June 18, 2014
stating he violated R.C. 2923.13(A)(3) by having weapons
while under disability. A bill of particulars filed on
January 14, 2015 stated appellant had in his possession, at
his residence, twenty-eight live rounds of .17 caliber
ammunition, four casings of fired ammunition, and a Marlin
model 917 firearm. The bill of particulars further alleged
appellant was previously convicted of possession of marijuana
in violation of R.C. 2925.11(1)(C)(d).
Appellant signed a jury waiver on February 26, 2015.
Appellant signed a plea of guilty on April 14, 2015 stating
he entered the plea with the understanding of the nature of
the charge and the consequences, including the penalty of the
plea. Further, that he had been fully advised by the court of
all of his constitutional rights. In the plea form, appellant
acknowledged he voluntarily waived all of his constitutional
The trial court held a plea hearing on April 14, 2015. During
the plea hearing, the trial court informed appellant of the
maximum prison term and fines for the violation. The trial
court further questioned appellant, "And do you
understand that after you are released from incarceration, if
that is what happens, that you would be placed on
post-release control or probation under standard rules for a
definite period of three years? You understand that?"
Appellant responded, "Yes, sir."
The trial court further asked appellant if he was currently
on probation or community control. Appellant stated he was
currently on community control. The trial court asked
appellant if he understood "that if you plead guilty to
this charge, that could be a violation of your probation,
parole, or community control in the other case and could
subject you to a penalty for that also? Do you understand
that?" Appellant stated, "Yes, sir." The trial
court then reviewed with appellant and confirmed he
understood the rights he was waiving by entering a plea of
guilty. The trial court also went over the plea form with
appellant and confirmed he understood the nature of the
charge and the consequences, including the maximum penalty,
of the plea. Appellant stated he understood what the document
was and wanted the court to accept the pleading. Further,
that he understood the judge would decide his sentence and he
could receive the maximum penalty as prescribed by law. The
trial court accepted appellant's plea of guilty, found
the plea was made freely, understandingly, and voluntarily,
with full knowledge of the nature of the accusation and the
consequences of the plea, and without undue influence,
compulsion, duress, or promise of leniency.
In an April 20, 2015 change of plea entry issued by the trial
court, the trial court stated it explained the possible
penalties that might be imposed if appellant were found
guilty and appellant said he understood and wanted the court
to proceed with and accept his plea. The trial court found
appellant "entered the guilty plea freely, knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily and fully understanding the
nature of the charges and accusations against him and all the
possible consequences and penalties resulting
therefrom." The trial court ordered a pre-sentence
investigation report and set the sentencing hearing for June
10, 2015. Appellant filed a motion to continue the sentencing
hearing. The trial court granted the motion and continued the
hearing until June 30, 2015. Appellant filed a second motion
to continue and requested the trial court defer the
sentencing hearing until a hearing was held on
appellant's alleged probation violation in an earlier
The trial court held a hearing on October 8, 2015. First,
appellant pled guilty to a probation violation in a previous
case, No. 11-CR-0062, as a result of his plea in the instant
case. When the trial court asked appellant whether there were
sufficient facts to find that he was guilty of the probation
violation, appellant stated "Yes, sir." In the
previous case, appellant pled guilty to one count of having
weapons while under disability and received a sentence of
five years of community control. In ...