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. Chatman

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler

December 9, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Appellee,
v.
TEVIAN R. CHATMAN, Appellant.

          CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2018-08-1486

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

          Michele Temmel, for appellant

          OPINION

          M. POWELL, J.

         {¶ 1} Appellant, Tevian Chatman, appeals from his convictions in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas following his guilty plea to two counts of endangering children. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm Chatman's convictions.

         {¶ 2} In August 2018, Chatman was indicted on four counts of endangering children. Thereafter, in December 2018, Chatman pled guilty to two counts of endangering children, one count in violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1), a second-degree felony, and one count in violation of R.C. 2919.22(A), a third-degree felony. In consideration of Chatman's guilty plea, the state agreed to dismiss the remaining two charges, but expressly "reserve[d] the absolute right to file additional criminal charges if the victims were to die as a result of the injuries caused by [Chatman], as stated in the bill of particulars (the "reservation provision")."

         {¶ 3} After a hearing, the trial court accepted Chatman's guilty plea and sentenced him to five years in prison for the violation of R.C. 2919.22(B)(1) and 24 months in prison for the violation of R.C. 2919.22(A). The trial court ordered the prison terms to be served consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of seven years in prison.

         {¶ 4} Chatman now appeals, raising one assignment of error.

         {¶ 5} Assignment of Error No. 1:

         {¶ 6} MR. CHATMAN'S PLEA WAS NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY, AND VOLUNTARILY MADE.

         {¶ 7} Chatman argues that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary because the trial court failed to determine that Chatman subjectively understood the effect of his plea. We find no merit to Chatman's argument.

         {¶ 8} When a defendant enters a guilty plea in a criminal case, the plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. State v. Butcher, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2012-10-206, 2013-Ohio-3081, ¶ 8. "Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution." State v. Payne, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2015-12-219, 2016-Ohio-5470, ¶ 7. To ensure that a defendant's guilty plea is knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made, the trial court must engage the defendant in a plea colloquy pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C). Id.

         {¶ 9} As relevant here, pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2), the trial court may not accept a defendant's guilty plea without first addressing the defendant personally and:

(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition ...

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.