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. Howland

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Highland

February 12, 2018

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CHARLES D. HOWLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

          Steven H. Eckstein, Washington Court House, Ohio, for appellant.

          Anneka Collins, Highland County Prosecuting Attorney, Hillsboro, Ohio, for appellee.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

          WILLIAM H. HARSHA, JUDGE.

         {¶1} 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 entered it.

         {¶2} 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.

         I. FACTS

         {¶3} 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.

         II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

         {¶4} 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 CONSTITUTION.

         III. LAW AND ANALYSIS

         A. Standard of Review

         {¶5} 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 ...


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.