State v. Lewis , 2012 Ohio 4858 ( 2012 )

[Cite as State v. Lewis, 2012-Ohio-4858.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
GREENE COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
: Appellate Case No. 2011-CA-75
Plaintiff-Appellee :
: Trial Court Case No. 11-CR-296
v. :
: (Criminal Appeal from
ROBERT R. LEWIS : (Common Pleas Court)
:
Defendant-Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on the 19th day of October, 2012.
...........
STEPHEN K. HALLER, Atty. Reg. #0009172, by NATHANIEL R. LUKEN, Atty. Reg. #0087864,
Greene County Prosecutor’s Office, 61 Greene Street, Xenia, Ohio 45385
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
JAY A. ADAMS, Atty. Reg. #0072135, 36 North Detroit Street, Suite 102, Xenia, Ohio 45385
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant
.............
HALL, J.
{¶ 1} Robert R. Lewis appeals from his conviction and sentence following guilty pleas to
illegal manufacture of drugs and illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of
drugs.
{¶ 2} Lewis advances three assignments of error on appeal. First, he contends his guilty
pleas were not entered knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily because the trial court deviated from a
2
plea agreement without advising him of that possibility. Second, he claims the trial court erred in
imposing a mandatory fine without determining his ability to pay. Third, he alleges ineffective
assistance of counsel based on his attorney’s failure to file an affidavit of indigency to avoid the fine.
{¶ 3} The record reflects that Lewis appeared in court on July 22, 2011 for a change-of-plea
and dispositional hearing. During the hearing, Lewis expressed a desire to plead guilty to both charges
against him. Among other things, the trial court advised him that he faced a mandatory minimum prison
sentence of three years. (Tr. at 16). The trial court also informed Lewis that he faced a mandatory
minimum fine of $12,500. (Id.). Lewis indicated that he understood. (Id.). The trial court then recited
the terms of a plea agreement as follows: “Mr. Lewis, your agreement says that you will plead guilty to
the Indictment; the parties will stipulate to a five-year prison sentence; the Defendant is responsible for
reimbursement of $125 for laboratory analysis of the evidence to the Fairborn Police Department.” (Id.
at 18). Lewis acknowledged that these were the terms of his plea agreement. (Id.).
{¶ 4} After reciting the plea agreement, the trial court informed Lewis that it would “impose
the agreed sentence that you’ve bargained for with the Prosecuting Attorney.” (Id. at 22). After some
discussion about Lewis’s rights, the trial court accepted his guilty pleas and proceeded to disposition.
During the sentencing phase of the hearing, the following exchange occurred:
THE COURT: * * * Mr. Lewis your sentence will be, in Count I, for a definite
period of five years for Illegal Manufacture of Drugs, a felony of the second degree;
Count II, for a definite period of five years for Illegal Assembly or Possession
of Chemicals for Manufacture of Drugs, a felony of the third degree.
These sentences will be served concurrently for a total effective sentence of
five years, of which the five years is mandatory. And the Court will not impose a fine
in your case.
Well, I guess I should say—has there been anything filed in this case regarding
a fine?
3
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] I’m sorry?
THE COURT: Has there been anything filed in regard to the fine?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Well, the plea agreement contains nothing about a
mandatory fine, but Mr. Lewis is indigent.
THE COURT: Well, has there been an affidavit filed in this case?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL:] I don’t that [sic] something has been filed.
THE COURT: Well, I will impose the minimum sentence, which is , I believe,
$12,500.
(Tr. at 31-32).
{¶ 5} In his first assignment of error, Lewis challenges the validity of his pleas. He argues
that the trial court violated his due process rights by deviating from the plea agreement after advising
him that it would impose the bargained-for sentence. Specifically, Lewis claims the trial court
impermissibly deviated from the plea agreement by imposing a $12,500 fine, a sanction not included in
the agreement.
{¶ 6} In support of his argument, Lewis relies primarily on this court’s opinion in State v.
Arde, 190 Ohio App.3d 196, 2010-Ohio-5274, 941 N.E.2d 119 (2d Dist.). There we stated: “The
decision to accept or reject a plea bargain rests solely within the discretion of the trial court. If the trial
court accepts a plea agreement on the record, it must honor it. If the trial court imposes anything other
than the agreed-upon sentence, the sentence is rendered void or voidable.” Id. at ¶18 (citations omitted).
In Arde, the trial court agreed to the terms of the parties’ plea agreement so long as the defendant met
certain conditions. The plea agreement called for a three-year prison sentence and restitution in the
amount of $348,953.82. Id. at ¶3-4. The trial court later found that the defendant had not complied with
its guidelines. As a result, it imposed a nine-year prison sentence. Id. at ¶10-11. The trial court also
apparently imposed a restitution obligation of $350,953.82 before issuing an amended entry reducing
restitution to the agreed-upon $348,953.82. Id. at ¶11, ¶24-26. On appeal in Arde, this court found that
4
the defendant had followed the conditions established by the trial court. Therefore, we held that the trial
court was obligated to impose the three-year prison sentence to which it had agreed. Id. at ¶21.
{¶ 7} Upon review, we find Arde to be distinguishable. In Arde, the trial court deviated from
the terms of a plea agreement it had committed to follow. Here the trial court did not deviate from the
terms of the plea agreement. The parties’ agreement did not address the issue of a fine. Notably, the trial
court specifically addressed the issue of a fine with Lewis before he entered his guilty pleas. It informed
him that he faced a mandatory minimum $12,500 fine. Lewis responded that he understood. (Tr. at 16).
Because the trial court made Lewis aware of the fine before he entered his pleas, we reject his
argument that the pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The first assignment
of error is overruled.
{¶ 8} In his second assignment of error, Lewis claims the trial court erred in imposing a fine
without determining his ability to pay.
{¶ 9} Although Lewis’s fine was mandatory under R.C. 2929.18, the trial court still was
obligated by R.C. 2929.19(B)(5) to consider his “present and future ability to pay.” A hearing on a
defendant’s ability to pay is not required. Nor is a court required to make findings. “All that is required
is that the trial court ‘consider’ a defendant’s ability to pay.” State v. Hodge, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
23964, 2011-Ohio-633, ¶55 (citations omitted). “[A] trial court is not required to expressly state that it
considered [a defendant’s] ability to pay a fine.” State v. Parker, 2d Dist. Champaign No. 03CA0017,
2004-Ohio-1313, ¶42. Under appropriate circumstances, a reviewing court may infer that a trial court
considered the issue. Id.{¶ 10} In the present case, the trial court stated in its judgment entry that it had “considered
the defendant’s present and future ability to pay financial sanctions.” (Doc. #24 at 2). Lewis argues,
however, that the record is devoid of evidence to support a finding that
he has, or will have, the ability to pay a $12,500 fine. We disagree. Lewis pled guilty to illegally
manufacturing methamphetamine. His ability to manufacture drugs indicates that he is able-bodied and
5
intelligent enough to obtain employment, perhaps manufacturing something legal. In addition, the trial
court established during the plea hearing that Lewis was forty-one years old, that he was a United States
citizen, and that he was capable of reading, writing, and speaking English. (Tr. at 8-9). His status and
skills are indicative of employability. In light of these facts, and absent any evidence to the contrary, the
trial court reasonably concluded that Lewis will have the ability to pay a fine. The second assignment of
error is overruled.
{¶ 11} In his third assignment of error, Lewis alleges ineffective assistance of counsel based
on his attorney’s failure to file an affidavit of indigency to avoid the fine. His argument implicates R.C.
2929.18(B)(1), which provides:
If an offender alleges in an affidavit filed with the court prior to sentencing that
the offender is indigent and unable to pay the mandatory fine and if the court
determines the offender is an indigent person and is unable to pay the mandatory fine
described in this division, the court shall not impose the mandatory fine upon the
offender.
{¶ 12} Lewis claims his trial counsel provided deficient representation by failing to file an
affidavit pursuant to R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) and that he was prejudiced by being required to pay a $12,500
fine. Lewis reasons that the would not have been required to pay the fine if his attorney had filed the
affidavit.
{¶ 13} To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must demonstrate both that
trial counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the errors were
serious enough to create a reasonable probability that, but for the errors, the result of the trial or
proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052,
80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989).
{¶ 14} “The failure to file an affidavit of indigency prior to sentencing may constitute
ineffective assistance of counsel if the record shows a reasonable probability that the trial court would
6
have found [the] Defendant indigent and relieved him of the obligation to pay the fine had the affidavit
been filed.” State v. Hicks, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23757, 2010-Ohio-5521, ¶15 (citation omitted).
“Information regarding [the] Defendant’s financial status is typically outside the record on merit appeal.
Then, the more appropriate vehicle for pursuing that issue is post-conviction relief proceedings filed
pursuant to R.C. 2953.21.” State v. Sheffield, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20029, 2004-Ohio-3099, ¶14.
{¶ 15} In the present case, Lewis makes much of the fact that he qualified as indigent for
purposes of receiving court-appointed counsel. He insists that this fact alone establishes a reasonable
probability that the trial court would have found him indigent for purposes of waiving the mandatory
fine. (Appellant’s brief at 13). Lewis also asserts that he suffers from a disability that prevents him from
maintaining employment and that he has been unemployed for six years. (Id.).
{¶ 16} Based on the record before us, we cannot find a reasonable probability that the trial
court would have found Lewis unable to pay a fine if his attorney had filed an affidavit. Although Lewis
obtained appointed counsel below, the trial court was aware of that fact when it found that he had the
ability to pay a fine. Although indigency for purposes of receiving appointed counsel could be sufficient
for a court to waive a mandatory fine, that fact alone is not coextensive with a reasonable probability
that the trial court would have waived the fine if his attorney had filed an affidavit. We have previously
held that a finding of indigence for purposes of appointed counsel does not shield the defendant from
paying a fine. State v. Hodge, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23964, 2011-Ohio-633, ¶55 (citation omitted).
“This is because the ability to pay a fine over a period of time is not equivalent to the ability to pay legal
counsel a retainer fee at the onset of criminal proceedings.” State v. Kelly, 145 Ohio App.3d 277, 284,
762 N.E.2d 479, 483 (12th Dist. 2001).
{¶ 17} As for Lewis’s assertion that he has a disability and cannot maintain employment, the
record contains no evidence to support it. If his assertion is true, the remedy is a petition for
post-conviction relief. The record before us establishes only that Lewis is relatively young, that he has
the ability to understand his criminal charges and his plea agreement, and that he is able-bodied enough
7
to manufacture drugs. These facts do not establish a reasonable probability that Lewis will be unable to
pay a fine, over time, after being released from prison. Cf. State v. Dixon, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
23671, 2010-Ohio-4919, ¶15 (finding no ineffective assistance of counsel stemming from the failure to
file an affidavit in part because the record contained no evidence “demonstrating Defendant’s inability
to secure future employment”).
{¶ 18} In opposition to the foregoing conclusion, Lewis relies on this court’s opinions in
Hodge, supra, and State v. Cochran, 2d Dist. Clark No. 97-CA-50, 1998 WL 288942 (June 5, 1998).
We find Hodge to be readily distinguishable. The evidence in that case established that the defendant
was fifty-three years old, had a tenth-grade education, had several prior felony convictions, was legally
blind, could not hold steady employment, and received social security disability and welfare benefits.
Hodge at ¶69. The facts of the present case do not resemble the facts of Hodge.
{¶ 19} In Cochran, this court reasoned:
* * * [T]here is enough indication of Cochran’s inability to pay this fine in
the record before us that we believe a remand is warranted, for the sole purpose of
determining whether the mandatory fines will be imposed * * *. We note that appellant
was represented by a public defender. Thus, there was necessarily a determination
made that he was indigent under Chapter 120 of the Revised Code. We recognize that
there is a difference between indigency for the purposes of receiving appointed counsel
and inability to pay a mandatory fine. * * * Nevertheless, that difference does not make
the prior determination entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the record shows a
reasonable probability that the trial court would have found Cochran indigent. * * * It
is reasonable to conclude that, where an offender was indigent for the purposes of
receiving appointed counsel but now faces a $6500 fine and five years of incarceration,
he could have proven himself indigent under [the relevant statutes], had he submitted a
proper affidavit of indigency.
8
Cochran at *6.
{¶ 20} This court’s 1998 opinion in Cochran does suggest that a defendant’s indigency for
purposes of obtaining appointed counsel, alone, establishes a reasonable probability that he would have
been found indigent for purposes of a fine if his attorney had filed an affidavit. More recently, however,
this court reached a contrary result in Dixon, which involved a defendant who had received a $7,000
fine and a five-year prison sentence for possessing crack cocaine. On appeal, this court reasoned:
Typically, information regarding Defendant’s financial status is outside the
record in a direct appeal. That is largely the case here. Defendant speculates that he
would not be able to obtain employment in the future due to his criminal record, which
consists of this offense and three prior convictions for cocaine possession. However,
there is no evidence in this record demonstrating Defendant’s inability to secure future
employment. What the record does show is that when Defendant was sentenced he was
twenty-three years old, had completed one year of college, and was able to post a ten
thousand dollar surety bond in order to secure his release from jail pending trial. On
these facts and circumstances, we cannot conclude that a reasonable probability exists
that the trial court would have found Defendant indigent and unable to pay the
applicable mandatory fine for his felony drug offense had defense counsel filed an
affidavit of indigency prior to sentencing.
Dixon at ¶15.
{¶ 21} Notably, the defendant in Dixon had obtained appointed counsel in the trial court. See
State v. Dixon, Montgomery C.P. No. 2008 CR 04339/1 (January 29, 2009 order appointing counsel on
basis of Dixon’s indigency). Although this court did not mention that fact in its ruling, Dixon’s indigent
status in the trial court was apparent on the face of the record. Nevertheless, this court concluded, based
on all of the evidence before it, that there was no reasonable probability the trial court would have
waived the mandatory fine if Dixon’s attorney had filed an affidavit of indigency. In reaching its
9
conclusion, this court was not unaware of Cochran, which it cited in its opinion. Dixon at ¶14.
{¶ 22} Upon review, we find Dixon to be persuasive. The fact that Lewis was indigent at the
time of trial for purposes of hiring counsel says little about his future employability or ability to pay a
fine after being released from prison. Although Lewis’s indigency for purposes of obtaining counsel
perhaps was not irrelevant to the fine issue, in this case it also was not enough to establish a reasonable
probability that his fine would have been waived if counsel had filed an affidavit. As set forth above,
the trial court was aware of Lewis’s inability to hire an attorney when it found that he had the ability to
pay a fine. It would be illogical, then, to hold that Lewis’s indigency for purposes of obtaining counsel
was enough to create a reasonable probability that the trial court would have waived the fine if properly
asked through an affidavit.1 Accordingly, the third assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 23} The judgment of the Greene County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
.............
DONOVAN and VUKOVICH, JJ., concur.
(Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich, Seventh District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of Ohio).
Copies mailed to:
Stephen K. Haller
Nathaniel R. Luken
Jay A. Adams
Hon. Stephen Wolaver
1
We note too that the evidence necessary to resolve an ineffective-assistance claim based on the lack of an affidavit challenging a
fine typically is found outside the record. See, e.g., Dixon at ¶15. Given the large number of criminal defendants who receive appointed trial
counsel, this would not be so if the fact that a defendant received appointed counsel were enough, standing alone, to support an
ineffective-assistance claim.
10