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. McIntosh

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Scioto

January 3, 2018

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. MCINTOSH, Defendant-Appellant.

          Darren L. Meade, Parks and Meade, L.L.C., Columbus, Ohio, for appellant.

          Mark E. Kuhn. Scioto County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jay Willis, Scioto County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellee.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

          WILLIAM H. HARSHA, JUDGE

         {¶1} After Christopher McIntosh entered a guilty plea to various criminal charges, the trial court sentenced him to prison. McIntosh claims that his guilty plea is invalid for two separate reasons.

         {¶2} Initially, he claims that his plea is invalid because the trial court failed to substantially comply with Crim.R. 11 by not explicitly advising him that the mandatory four-year term of his prison sentence rendered him ineligible for community control. However, he concedes the trial court partially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by advising him during his change-of-plea hearing that he would receive a four-year mandatory prison term for his second-degree felony conviction for aggravated possession of drugs. Furthermore, at the end of the sentencing hearing McIntosh confirmed with the court that the initial four years of his sentence would be mandatory prison time. And McIntosh cites no evidence that if the trial court had taken greater care in advising him about his mandatory prison term and consequent ineligibility for community control, he would not have entered his guilty plea to the charges. We reject his first claim.

         {¶3} Next McIntosh asserts that his plea is invalid because it was not voluntary, i.e. the trial court and the state improperly induced him to make the plea in order to allow his girlfriend to avoid a harsher sentence. Although this form of plea bargaining presents the accused with unpleasant alternatives, it is not unconstitutionally coercive as long as the state acts in good faith. Therefore, courts have consistently upheld pleas against claims of involuntariness due to coercion where the state offered lenient treatment to a person other than the defendant. McIntosh did not establish that his plea was involuntary.

         {¶4} Therefore, we overrule McIntosh's assignments of error and affirm his convictions and sentence.

         I. FACTS

         {¶5} In Scioto C.P. Case No. 16CR411, the Scioto County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Christopher McIntosh with two counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs, one count of trafficking in drugs, two counts of aggravated possession of drugs, one count of possession of drugs, one count of having weapons while under disability, and one count of receiving stolen property, with firearm and forfeiture specifications for the drug charges and a forfeiture specification for the having weapons while under disability charge.

         {¶6} In Scioto C.P. Case No. 16CR617(A) and (B), the Scioto County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging McIntosh and his girlfriend, Tammy Criteser, with two counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs, with accompanying forfeiture specifications, and one count of possession of drugs.

         {¶7} After initially pleading not guilty, McIntosh executed written waivers of his rights to a jury trial and pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated possession of drugs, a second-degree felony, with a forfeiture specification, one count of having weapons while under disability, and one count of receiving stolen property in Case No. 16CA411; he also pled guilty to one count of aggravated possession of drugs with a forfeiture specification in Case No. 16CA617(A). In a written form entitled "MAXIMUM PENALTY," McIntosh and his trial counsel certified that he understood that the maximum penalty for his second-degree felony of aggravated possession of drugs in Case No. 16CA411 included a maximum prison term of eight years, and that this prison term was both "mandatory" and "presumed necessary." The form also stated that "[i]f this court is not required by law to impose a prison sanction, it may impose a community control sanction or non-prison sanction upon you." The form advised that "[c]ourt costs, restitution and other financial sanctions including probation fees may be imposed," with the term "probation fees" typed into a blank on the waiver form.

         {¶8} The trial court then held a hearing on McIntosh's request to change his plea in Case Nos. 16CA411 and 16CR617(A). At the outset of the hearing the state noted that McIntosh was facing a potential prison term of 26 ½ years on the indictments, but that it had made a plea offer for him to receive a prison term of eight years, with four of those years being mandatory, that he would thereafter be eligible for early release, and if he pleaded guilty, the state would recommend community control for his girlfriend, Criteser, in Case No. 16CR617(B).

         {¶9} McIntosh's trial counsel informed the trial court that he had conveyed the state's offer and that McIntosh said he would be willing to accept it if he were allowed out on bail for 20 days. However, the court indicated it was not willing to release him on bail. At that point the following exchange occurred:

MR. MEARAN: So sir, is it your desire then not to accept the offer made knowing that you're not going to get out and knowing that you're facing 26 - possibility of 26 years?
DEFENDANT MCINSTOSH: It's not my desire to -- I accept the offer but I would like to speak to my family members and let them know the offer presented to me this day.
MR. MEARAN: Sir, I gave you that offer two days ago, tried to even call your family two days ago, so I don't think that there's any more time left. We either accept it now or we go to trial.
DEFENDANT MCINSTOSH: May I -- may I request 24 hours, please.
MR. KUHN: We've already got people scheduled in on this, Your Honor. I've got prep to do. To be honest, it'd be less work on me just to go ahead and try the case. If he wants to accept it today, I made the offer and I'll leave it open to both of them, but otherwise, I've waited long enough. We should have done this last week.
** *
DEFENDANT MCINTOSH: * * * I did not get in touch with my love[d] ones at this time. I will definitely do so tonight. I can contact Mr. Mearan first thing in the morning. Mr. Kuhn, Judge Marshall, please, I ask you to give me that one day, 24 hours.
MR. KUHN: We're ready to go ahead and withdraw the offer, Your Honor. I've waited long enough.
** *
THE COURT: So * * * you take it now or you've lost it forever, and if you don't take the offer and she's found guilty, her offer is off the table too and she doesn't get Star. Ms. Criteser, do you understand the offer?
DEFENDANT CRITESER: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Okay. You understand it's being withdrawn based on Mr. McIntosh's decision?
DEFENDANT CRITESER: I understand, but I -- I don't like it.
THE COURT: I -- I wouldn't like it either, but I'd man-up.
DEFENDANT MCINTOSH: I don't have a choice.
MR. MEARAN: You want to take the offer?
DEFENDANT MCINSTOSH: I have no choice.
MR. MEARAN: You don't. Do we have the ...

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.