Login | April 25, 2024
11th District reverses compelling prostitution sentence
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: January 24, 2022
After being indicted on multiple rape charges involving minors, a defendant in an Ashtabula County trial court pleaded guilty to four counts of compelling prostitution and seven amended counts of sexual imposition.
In July 2020, Phillip Garcia filed a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas and filed objections to the presentencing investigation report. The motions were denied by the trial court, and Garcia was sentenced to 18 years in prison.
Garcia appealed his convictions and sentence on multiple grounds. The 11th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the convictions in whole and his sentence in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with appellate Judge Matt Lynch’s opinion.
Garcia alleged the trial court erred by sentencing him to five years in prison on three of the compelling prostitution counts, beyond the statutory maximum of three years. The state conceded the error.
“As Garcia explains in his brief, at the time he committed the acts constituting compelling prostitution, the maximum sentence for a third-degree felony was five years,” Judge Lynch said in his 3-0 opinion. “At the time Garcia was sentenced for these crimes, the maximum prison term for a violation of R.C. 2907.21 had been reduced to 36 months by the enactment of H.B. 86, effective Sept. 30, 2011. Accordingly, 36 months was the maximum prison term that could be imposed for compelling prostitution.”
Garcia also successfully argued the three-year sentence imposed for the fourth count of compelling prostitution should be reversed because it was imposed under the mistaken belief the maximum sentence was five years.
“In contrast to the other three counts of compelling prostitution for which the trial court imposed (what it mistakenly believed to be) the maximum sentence of five years, the court imposed a three-year sentence for count 20 on the grounds that ‘that was the one encounter, which while it’s claimed caused great distress and no doubt it caused some it was yet one encounter, for that there is a three-year term of imprisonment.’ Inasmuch as a three-year sentence is the maximum sentence that could be imposed for compelling prostitution, the record fails to support the court’s reasoning for imposing that sentence,” Judge Lynch wrote.
Therefore, Garcia’s sentences for compelling prostitution were reversed.
The appellate court found no abuse of discretion of the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas, finding the trial court properly construed Garcia’s reasons for wanting to withdraw his guilty pleas as a mere “change of heart.”
Garcia, who faced a potential aggregate prison term of 184 years, alleged he had doubts about receiving a fair trial, and feared contracting COVID-19 if incarcerated.
“To some extent, such fears are justifiable and may have induced Garcia entering pleas that, upon further reflection, he wished he had not made,” Judge Lynch wrote. “They do not render his pleas involuntary. It is never explained in Garcia’s affidavit what aspects of the charges or the consequences of pleading he was unable to comprehend as a result of his mental distress. Nor was it explained how the diagnoses of depression and anxiety prevented Garcia from understanding what he was doing by pleading guilty.”
The appellate panel added there is abundant precedent of appellate courts affirming the denial of motions to withdraw pleas based on claims that they were induced by fear and panic. In addition, Garcia’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea was made just two days before sentencing and more than two months after the pleas were entered.
The appellate court also found Garcia received a full Criminal Rule 11 colloquy to which defense counsel did not take exception during the hearing on the motion to withdraw.
“Garcia appeared to the trial court judge ‘composed and in full command of his faculties’ at the time he entered his plea,” Judge Lynch stated. “Garcia counters that, because the plea colloquy was conducted via Zoom, his hands, legs, and feet would not have been visible to the trial judge. However, Garcia was in his attorney’s presence when the pleas were given and nothing in the record, either the affidavit or the psychological report, indicates that Garcia’s depression and anxiety manifested itself corporally.”
Appellate judges Mary Jane Trapp and Cynthia Westcott Rice concurred. The case is cited State v. Garcia, 2021-Ohio-4480.