State v. Currie , 2014 Ohio 4334 ( 2014 )

[Cite as State v. Currie, 2014-Ohio-4334.]
COURT OF APPEALS
STARK COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 2014CA00057
DAVID CURRIE, JR.
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Stark County Court of
Common Pleas, Case No. 2012CR1066
JUDGMENT: Sentence Vacated and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: September 29, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
JOHN D. FERRERO, DAVID CURRIE, JR., PRO SE
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, Inmate #A633-883
STARK COUNTY, OHIO Richland Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 8107
By: RONALD MARK CALDWELL Mansfield, Ohio 44901
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Appellate Section
110 Central Plaza, South - Suite 510
Canton, Ohio 44702-1413
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00057 2
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant David Currie Jr. appeals the Judgment Entry of the
Stark County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Plaintiff-appellee is the state of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS1
{¶2} On September 4, 2012, Appellant was indicted by the Stark County Grand
Jury with one count of having weapons while under disability, in violation of R.C.
2923.13(A)(3), a felony of the third degree; one count of trafficking in heroin, in violation
of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), a felony of the fourth degree per R.C. 2925.03(C)(6)(b); one
count of possession of heroin, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the fourth
degree per R.C. 2925.11(C)(6)(b); one count of trafficking in cocaine, in violation of R.C.
2925.03(A)(2), a felony of the fourth degree per R.C. 2925.03(C)(4)(c); and one count of
possession of cocaine, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A), a felony of the fourth degree per
R.C. 2925.11(C)(4)(b). The charges arose from the execution of a search warrant at
Appellant’s residence where police found a loaded gun, amounts of heroin, and
amounts of cocaine. Appellant admitted to police the gun and heroin were his, he used
cocaine, and he sold drugs from his residence.
{¶3} On December 17, 2012, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charges
and was sentenced to twelve months on each count, to be served consecutively, for an
aggregate prison term of 60 months.
{¶4} On April 30, 2013, Appellant filed for a delayed appeal pursuant to
Appellate Rule 5(A). In the docketing statement filed with the delayed appeal, Appellant
1
A full rendition of the underlying facts is unnecessary for our resolution of this appeal.
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00057 3
noted he was challenging the consecutive nature of his prison sentence, as well as the
improper imposition of post-release control. This Court denied the motion for delayed
appeal.
{¶5} On July 1, 2013, Appellant filed a “Motion to Correct/Merge Sentence” in
order to challenge his sentence. Appellant moved the trial court to reconsider its
sentence on the grounds the drug trafficking and possession offenses should have
merged pursuant to R.C. 2941.25, and the aggregate consecutive sentence exceeded
the statutory maximum per R.C. 2929.41(A), R.C. 2929.14(A)(4), and R.C.
2929.14(A)(3)(b). Appellant specifically requested his sentence be reduced from 60
months to three years. The trial court summarily overruled the motion. Appellant filed
an appeal with this Court. On appeal, this Court found res judicata barred litigation of
the merger issue, and affirmed the decision of the trial court.
{¶6} On March 19, 2014, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea per
Criminal Rule 32.1 claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for having him plead
guilty to a void sentence. Appellant argued his sentence was void as the charges
constituted allied offenses of similar import, and the trial court did not make the findings
necessary to support consecutive sentences as required under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).
{¶7} The trial court denied the motion to withdraw guilty plea via Judgment
Entry of March 25, 2014.
{¶8} Appellant appeals, assigning as error:
{¶9} "I. THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
MANDATORY PROVISION OF AM. SUB. H.S. 86, GEN. ASSEM. (OHIO 2011) IN
CONJUNCTION WITH R.C. 2929.14(C) WHEN IMPOSING CONSECUTIVE
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00057 4
SENTENCES, RENDERED THE SENTENCE VOID AND SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC
REVERSAL AND REMAND.
{¶10} "II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
APPELLANT'S CR. R. 32.1 MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA WHERE
TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO A SENTENCE BASED UPON ALLIED
OFFENSES OF SIMILAR IMPORT IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL
DOUBLE JEOPARDY PROHIBITIONS.
{¶11} "III. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
APPELLANT'S CR. R. 32.1 MOTION TO WITHDREW HIS GUILTY PLEA WHERE
TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO OBJECT TO THE IMPOSITION OF A VOID SENTENCE
IN VIOLATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL DUE PROCESS."
II & III
{¶12} We address these assignments of error together as they raise similar
arguments.
{¶13} We note the state of Ohio does not dispute the merits of Appellant's claim
some of his convictions for trafficking and possession should have been considered
allied offenses for purposes of sentencing. The State concedes Appellant has
demonstrated plain error occurred during sentencing pursuant to the Ohio Supreme
Court's pronouncement in State v. Cabrales, 118 Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-6314. The
State agrees, "The Court should therefore sustain the assignment of error, barring any
procedural bars to consideration of the merits of the claim, and remand the case to the
trial court for resentencing." (Appellee Brief at 15.)
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00057 5
{¶14} Res judicata presents such a procedural bar. However, given the State's
candid recognition of the merits of Appellant's claim and in the interest of justice, we
elect to reverse our previous decision to deny Appellant's Motion for Leave to File a
Delayed Appeal. We will treat the instant briefing by the parties in this appeal as if they
had been filed on direct appeal, without further briefing and precluding presentation of
any additional claims of error. Upon so doing, we find the trial court's and this Court's
prior rulings do not constitute res judicata since this "direct appeal" would have
preceded his Motion to Correct/Merge Sentence and the appeal therefrom.
{¶15} We affirm the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion to withdraw his plea,
but we vacate his sentence and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.
I
{¶16} In light of our disposition of Appellant's other assignments of error, we find
his argument herein premature and overruled.
{¶17} Appellant’s sentence in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas is
vacated, and the matter remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Farmer, J. and
Delaney, J. concur
Stark County, Case No. 2014CA00057 6