FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
LORAIN, OHIO CASE Nos. 17CR095455 17CR095819 17CR095926
GIOVANNA V. BREMKE, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and BRIAN P. MURPHY, Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
CALLAHAN, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Appellant, Nicholas Bland, appeals his convictions by the
Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
Mr. Bland entered guilty pleas to numerous charges in five
separate cases. On the written plea agreements, a notation
appears that there were "[n]o sentencing agreements with
the State of Ohio." On the third page, however, in
response to the question "Have any other promises or
representations been made to you?" a handwritten
notation read "YES. 9yrs." The trial court judge
accepted Mr. Bland's plea, but later acknowledged that he
had failed to strictly comply with the constitutional
requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) during the plea colloquy.
The parties agreed, but disagreed about the appropriate
remedy. In the meantime, the State moved the trial court
judge to recuse himself from further proceedings, arguing
that he had assumed an inappropriate role in the plea
negotiations. The trial court judge granted the motion, and
the matter was reassigned to another judge of the same court.
The second trial court judge resumed proceedings at the point
where the first had left off, and the parties appeared for
argument regarding the appropriate remedy for the violation
of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). Mr. Bland also filed a motion for
specific performance of the plea agreement. The second trial
court judge denied Mr. Bland's motion for specific
performance, concluded that the previous judge had failed to
strictly comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c),
and vacated the plea sua sponte. Mr. Bland entered no contest
pleas in each of the cases, and the trial court sentenced him
to prison terms totaling fifteen years. Mr. Bland filed this
OF ERROR NO. 1
VOLUNTARY JUDICIAL RECUSAL WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
In his first assignment of error, Mr. Bland argues that the
first trial court judge erred by recusing himself. This
Court, however, does not have jurisdiction to review a trial
court judge's decision to grant a motion for recusal.
State v. Chapman, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 11CA009973,
2012-Ohio-640, ¶ 6, citing State ex rel Hough v.
Saffold, 131 Ohio St.3d 54, 2012-Ohio-28, ¶ 2. Even
if this Court could consider Mr. Bland's argument that
the first trial court judge's decision affected the
voluntariness of his later no contest plea, that argument
relies on facts that are outside of the record on appeal, and
we are unable to review this issue. See State v.
Walter, 9th Dist. Wayne Nos. 16AP0009, 16AP0010,
2017-Ohio-236, ¶ 19, citing State v.
Zupancic, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 12CA0065, 2013-Ohio-3072,
Mr. Bland's first assignment of error is overruled.