State v. Bloom , 2022 Ohio 3604 ( 2022 )

[Cite as State v. Bloom, 2022-Ohio-3604.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
CRAWFORD COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
CASE NO. 3-22-17
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
DIRK BLOOM, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Crawford County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 21-CR-0386
Judgment Reversed and Cause Remanded
Date of Decision: October 11, 2022
APPEARANCES:
Howard A. Elliott for Appellant
Daniel J. Stanley for Appellee
Case No. 3-22-17
WILLAMOWSKI, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Dirk A. Bloom (“Bloom”) brings this appeal from
the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County finding him guilty
of possession of heroin and sentencing him to ten months in prison. Bloom argues
on appeal that the trial court 1) failed to comply with Criminal Rule 11 when
accepting his plea and 2) failed to properly address jail time credit. For the reasons
set forth below, the judgment is reversed.
{¶2} On November 12, 2021, the Crawford County Grand Jury indicted
Bloom on one count of possession of heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.11(A),
(C)(6)(a), a felony of the fifth degree. Doc. 1. On April 13, 2022, Bloom changed
his plea from not guilty to guilty. Doc. 19. At the change of plea hearing, the trial
court advised Bloom that by pleading guilty, he was waiving the right to have a full
jury trial, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses, the
right to remain silent, and the right to a unanimous verdict by a jury before being
found guilty. Tr. 9-10. No discussion was had regarding the burden of proof that
the State would have to meet. The trial court accepted Bloom’s plea and found him
guilty. Tr. 11. The trial court then sentenced Bloom immediately.
{¶3} Bloom appeals from this judgment and raises the following assignments
of error.
-2-
Case No. 3-22-17
First Assignment of Error
Because the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory
advisements of constitutional rights under Criminal Rule
11(C)(2)(c), the plea of guilty herein was not knowingly,
intelligently and voluntarily given and must be vacated and this
matter remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court failed to, at the time of the sentencing hearing,
address and determine whatever jail time credit the Defendant is
entitled to is error which dictates the sentence imposed must be
vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings as to sentencing.
{¶4} In the first assignment of error Bloom claims that the trial court erred
by failing to properly advise him of his constitutional rights as required by Criminal
Rule 11(C). This Court notes that the State concedes that the trial court erred and
that the plea must be vacated.
(2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty
or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no
contest without first addressing the defendant personally and
doing all of the following.
***
(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant
understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights
to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s
favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be
compelled to testify against himself or herself.
Crim.R. 11(C) (emphasis added).
-3-
Case No. 3-22-17
{¶5} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that “the duty to advise the defendant
of the right to have guilt proven by the state beyond a reasonable doubt is among
the duties of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) with which the court must strictly comply.” State
v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 21, 897 N.E.2d 621. The failure
of the trial court to orally inform a defendant of the rights set forth in Crim.R.
11(C)(2)(c) during the plea colloquy renders the plea invalid. Id. at ¶ 29. The matter
must then be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Id. at ¶ 30. The
Ohio Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this requirement and held that the failure
to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) “amounts to plain error” and “cannot
be deemed harmless.” State v. Miller, 159 Ohio St.3d 447, 2020-Ohio-1420, ¶ 13,
16, 151 N.E.3d 617 and State v. Brinkman, 165 Ohio St.3d 523, 2021-Ohio-2473, ¶
12, 180 N.E.3d 1074.
{¶6} Here, the trial court failed to advise Bloom of his right to require the
state prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as is required by Criminal Rule 11
(C)(2)(c). Pursuant to the holdings of the Ohio Supreme Court in Veney, Miller,
and Brinkman, the failure to strictly comply is reversible error and renders the plea
invalid. The first assignment of error is sustained.
{¶7} Bloom claims in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred
in determining the amount of time served. Having found that the plea is invalid, the
-4-
Case No. 3-22-17
remaining assignment of error is moot.1 State v. Blair, 3d Dist. Paulding Nos. 11-
19-01, 11-19-02, 2019-Ohio-4308. Thus, this court will not address it at this time.
App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
{¶8} Having found error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars
assigned and argued, the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Crawford County
is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Judgment Reversed and
Cause Remanded
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and MILLER, J., concur.
/hls
1
Although this Court is not ruling on this assignment of error at this time, we note that we have previously
addressed this issue in State v. Foust, 3d Dist. Crawford No. 3-21-27, 2022-Ohio-3187.
-5-