The Sixth Appellate District Court of Ohio has affirmed the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas in the case of *State v. Black*. Delvon Black, the appellant, had appealed his conviction on one count of trespass in a habitation and two counts of receiving stolen property. The appeal focused on whether Black’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily made and whether the trial court had the discretion to impose a jail term. The appellate court found against Black on both counts, upholding the original judgment.
Background of the Case
The case stems from events that occurred on August 18 and 19, 2024. Black entered the homes of two individuals and took possession of three bank cards belonging to one of the homeowners. He was initially indicted on five charges, including two counts of trespass in a habitation and three counts of receiving stolen property. Black later pleaded guilty to one count of trespass and two counts of receiving stolen property. In exchange for his guilty plea, the prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining counts and not object to a community control sanction.
During the plea hearing, the trial court informed Black of the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. These included his right to a jury trial, to confront witnesses, to present evidence, to remain silent, and the presumption of innocence. Black indicated that he understood these rights and that he was pleading guilty of his own free will.
Following the plea, the court was informed that Black had been indicted in Cuyahoga County on drug possession charges and that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. The trial court explained to Black that he would likely be transported back to Cuyahoga County but was expected to return to Sandusky County for sentencing. Black failed to appear for his scheduled sentencing hearing, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was later apprehended, and the sentencing hearing was held.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court considered Black’s criminal history, including prior probation violations and drug convictions. The court determined that a community control sanction was not required due to Black’s prior felony conviction. Black was sentenced to 180 days in jail on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently.
First Assignment of Error: Validity of the Guilty Plea
The first assignment of error argued by Black was that his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because the trial court did not adequately ensure he understood the rights he was giving up. Black claimed the court only “summarily set forth” the rights and made no inquiry to determine if he understood them.
The appellate court referenced the case of *State v. Ballard*, where the Ohio Supreme Court stated the ideal method is to use the language of the rule and ask the defendant if they understand and are waiving each right. However, the court also noted that failing to do so does not automatically invalidate the plea. The focus, as the court cited in *State v. Reyes*, is whether the trial court explained the rights in a way “reasonably intelligible” to the defendant.
The appellate court found that the trial court’s recitation of rights included all those required by the rule and used language approximating the rule’s wording. Moreover, the court noted that Black was asked if he understood “everything up to this point,” to which he answered “Yes, sir.” The court held that the structure of the plea hearing did not invalidate Black’s guilty plea, and the first assignment of error was not well-taken.
Second Assignment of Error: Discretion in Sentencing
Black’s second argument focused on the trial court’s sentencing discretion. He conceded that the court could sentence him to up to 180 days in jail as part of a community control sanction but argued that the court erred by sentencing him to jail without it being part of a community control residential sanction.
The appellate court clarified that community control was not mandatory because Black had a prior felony conviction. The court then considered whether the trial court had grounds to impose a prison term. The court found that two circumstances allowed for a prison term: Black violated the conditions of his bond by failing to appear for sentencing, and Black committed the offenses while under community control sanctions.
Black argued that his failure to appear should be disregarded because he “could have been in custody in Cuyahoga County.” The court rejected this argument, noting that the record did not support the claim that Black was unavailable. The court also determined that Black committed the offenses while under several community control sanctions. The court found that Black was under a suspended jail sentence from a Stark County case, which constituted probation. The appellate court also noted that Black was under community control sanctions from the Stark County case, including community service and fines. Since Black was under community control sanctions when the offenses occurred, the court found the second assignment of error not well-taken.
Conclusion
The Sixth Appellate District Court affirmed the judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas. The court found that Black’s guilty plea was valid and that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.