Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Mahoning
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County,
Ohio Case No. 2015 CR 1000
Plaintiff-Appellee: Atty. Paul J. Gains Mahoning County
Prosecutor Atty. Nicholas A. Brevetta Assistant Prosecuting
Defendant-Appellant: Atty. Edward A. Czopur DeGenova &
JUDGES: Hon. Cheryl L. Waite, Hon. Mary DeGenaro, Hon. Carol
Appellant Joseph J. Reinthaler, Jr. appeals his conviction
and sentence entered by the Mahoning County Court of Common
Pleas following his plea of guilty to one count of tampering
with records, one count of forgery, one count of engaging in
a pattern of corrupt activity, and sixty-seven counts of
tampering with records. Appellant contends his plea was not
made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, and should be
vacated. Appellant also asserts his sentence was clearly and
convincingly contrary to law because the trial court failed
to make the requisite findings regarding consecutive
sentencing. Based on the following, we find Appellant's
guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently
entered as the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11
and Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
Regarding Appellant's second assignment of error, the
record reveals the trial court clearly engaged in the
required analysis when imposing consecutive sentences at the
sentencing hearing. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed in this respect. However, as the trial
court quoted directly from R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) in the
sentencing entry and did not incorporate the findings already
made on the record at the sentencing hearing, a limited
remand is ordered for the trial court to enter a nunc pro
tunc entry, properly addressing the consecutive
and Procedural History
Appellant operated an automobile dealership. According to
evidence introduced by the state, Appellant took in cars as
trade-ins at the dealership, assuring the seller that
Appellant would pay off the existing liens on the car.
Appellant subsequently forged signatures and altered
documents so it would appear the liens had been paid.
Appellant then sold the subject cars to other, unsuspecting
In an indictment and superseding indictment, Appellant was
charged with one count of tampering with records in violation
of R.C. 2913.42(A)(2), (B)(1)(4), a felony of the third
degree; one count of forgery in violation of R.C.
2913.31(A)(3), (C), a felony of the fifth degree; one count
of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity in violation of
R.C. 2923.32(A)(3), (B)(1), a felony of the first degree; and
sixty-seven counts of tampering with records in violation of
R.C. 2913.42(A)(2), (B)(1)(4), felonies of the third degree.
On August 3, 2016, Appellant pleaded guilty to all charges.
There was no sentencing recommendation by the state.
On November 3, 2016, a sentencing hearing was held. Appellant
was sentenced to two years of incarceration for tampering
with records; twelve months for forgery; ten years for
engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity; and twelve months
for the sixty-seven counts of tampering with records. The
trial court ordered counts one, two, three and four to run
consecutive to each other, with the remaining counts to be
served concurrently, for a total prison time of fourteen
Appellant filed this timely appeal.
OF ERROR NO. 1
PLEA WAS NOT MADE KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY AS
THE TRIAL COURT COMPLETELY FAILED TO ADVISE APPELLANT OF THE
EFFECT OF HIS PLEA AND/OR THAT UPON ACCEPTANCE OF HIS PLEA
THAT THE COURT COULD PROCEED IMMEDIATELY TO JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE THEREBY INVALIDATING THE PLEA AS A WHOLE.
Appellant alleges that he did not enter his plea knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily because he was not informed of
the effect of his plea or that the matter ...