Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Highland
H. Eckstein, Washington Court House, Ohio, for appellant.
Collins, Highland County Prosecuting Attorney, Hillsboro,
Ohio, for appellee.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
WILLIAM H. HARSHA, JUDGE.
Charles Howland pleaded guilty to aggravated possession of
methamphetamine with a forfeiture specification. After
accepting the plea the court convicted him, imposed a
sentence, and ordered certain monies forfeited. Howland
contends that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily because he was sleep deprived
and under the influence of illegal drugs at the time he
However, the trial court correctly found Howland's plea
was made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. Howland
expressly denied being under the influence of drugs or
alcohol. And there is no evidence in the record that drugs,
alcohol or sleep deprivation impaired Howland's judgment.
We overrule Howland's assignment of error and affirm the
trial court's judgment.
The state indicted Howland for possession of methamphetamine
in violation of R.C. 2925.11, a third-degree felony, with a
forfeiture specification for $674.00 in cash. He pleaded
guilty and agreed to the forfeiture. The trial court
conducted a colloquy to determine whether Howland was on
drugs or alcohol, and whether he was fully informed of his
rights and understood the consequence of his guilty plea.
Upon being satisfied that Howland voluntarily entered his
plea and waived his constitutional rights, the court accepted
his plea and convicted him. Three months later we allowed
Howland this delayed appeal.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Howland assigns the following error for our review:
HOWLAND'S GUILTY PLEA WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE
FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 10 OF THE OHIO
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
A defendant who enters a plea in a criminal case must act
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of
those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional
under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio
Constitution. See State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d
176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 7, quoting
State v. Engle,74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d
450 (1996). An appellate court that determines whether a
guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily must conduct a de novo review of the record to
ensure that the trial court complied with the constitutional
and procedural ...