Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Mayle

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Ashtabula

December 11, 2017

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DOUGLAS M. MAYLE, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

         Criminal Appeal from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2014 CR 00298.

          Nicholas A. Iarocci, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, and Shelley M. Pratt For Plaintiff-Appellee.

          Richard Tadd Pinkston, Suite L, Barberton For Defendant-Appellant.

          OPINION

          THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.

         {¶1} Appellant, Douglas M. Mayle, Jr., appeals revocation of his community control sanctions and imposition of a thirty-month prison term on his conviction for attempted felonious assault. He challenges the trial court's acceptance of his admission to the community control violation and his sentence. We affirm.

         {¶2} In July 2014, appellant was indicted on one count of felonious assault, a second-degree felony under R.C. 2903.11(A)(1), based upon an allegation that appellant threw a kitchen chair that hit his girlfriend in the chest, injuring her sternum.

         {¶3} Ultimately, appellant entered an Alford guilty plea to an amended charge of attempted felonious assault, a third-degree felony. The trial court accepted the plea and found appellant guilty.

         {¶4} A sentencing hearing was later scheduled and held. Speaking on his own behalf, appellant claimed he never intended any harm. He also informed that he was experiencing serious health problems, including liver failure. After appellant's statement, the prosecutor agreed incarceration was not appropriate. The trial court sentenced appellant to two years of community control, placing him on intensive supervision. The court informed appellant that he would be subject to a thirty-month prison term if he violated community control sanctions.

         {¶5} Approximately fifteen months later, the trial court issued a capias for appellant's arrest on the grounds that he repeatedly violated the terms of community control. Appellant was apprehended and confined in the county jail. His probation officer filed a "violation" complaint, alleging failure to report for over six months.

         {¶6} A probable cause hearing on the alleged violation was held. After the trial court explained the purpose of a probable cause hearing, appellant stated that he did not wish to challenge the allegation. He asserted that he was not receiving proper medical care in the county jail, and that he needed to be transferred to a state penitentiary as soon as possible to obtain adequate care. Thereafter, appellant consulted off the record with his counsel, who then informed that his client waives the probable cause and final hearing, and enters an admission on the violation.

         {¶7} After the trial court accepted the admission, appellant's counsel requested a shorter prison term than the thirty-month term referenced when community control sanctions were imposed. While acknowledging that appellant had taken some steps to change his behavior, the trial court imposed a thirty-month prison term finding appellant no longer amenable to community control sanctions, and that a prison term was necessary to satisfy the overriding purposes and principles of felony sentencing.

         {¶8} Appellant appeals raising:

         {¶9} "[1.] The trial court erred when it accepted a de facto Alford guilty plea from [appellant] without following the proper procedure laid out in State v. Piacella, 27 Ohio St.2d 92, 271 N.E.2d 852 (1971).

         {¶10} "[2.] The trial court erred in failing to notify [appellant] that an admission of violating community control at his probable cause hearing would trigger a thirty-month prison sentence under R.C. 2929.15 and R.C. 2929.19 and additionally by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.