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. Daniels

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler

June 10, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,
v.
MARK DANIELS, Appellant.

          CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

          Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Michael Greer, Government Services Center, for appellee

          Mark Daniels, appellant, pro se.

          OPINION

          RINGLAND, P.J.

         {¶ 1} Appellant, Mark Daniels, appeals the decision from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas denying his postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the decision.

         {¶ 2} In September 2011, appellant was indicted for four felony offenses: aggravated vehicular homicide, a second-degree felony, and three counts of vehicular assault, third- degree felonies. These charges resulted from a two-vehicle, automobile collision in which appellant's brother died and the occupants of the other vehicle suffered serious injuries. In March 2012, appellant pled guilty to an amended charge of third-degree attempted aggravated vehicular homicide and the three vehicular assault charges. Then, in May 2012, the court sentenced appellant to community control for a period of five years.

         {¶ 3} While serving his sentence, appellant violated the terms and conditions of community control in three separate instances. For the first and second violations, the court decided to continue appellant on community control. In April 2017, after the third violation, the court terminated appellant's community control and ordered appellant serve a ten-year prison term.

         {¶ 4} In March 2018, appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In his motion, appellant argued that his plea was invalid for two reasons: the prosecutor failed to provide exculpatory evidence and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court issued a written decision denying the motion on three grounds: untimeliness, res judicata, and waiver by guilty plea.

         {¶ 5} APPELLANT now appeals, pro se, raising four assignments of error for review:

         {¶ 6} Assignment of Error No. 1:

         {¶ 7} TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE APPELLANT'S MOTION WHERE THE APPELLANT MADE THE MERITORIOUS CLAIM THAT HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, OR VOLUNTARY DUE TO THE STATE'S EXCLUSION OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE VIOLATING THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

         {¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 2:

         {¶ 9} TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING EH [SIC] APPELLANT'S MOTION WHERE THE APPELLANT MADE THE MERITORIOUS CLAIM THAT HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT KNOWING, INTELLIGENT, OR VOLUNTARY DUE TO TRIAL COUNSEL'S INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DUE TO HIS FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE, THUS VIOLATING HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

         {¶ 10} ...


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.