The Akron Legal News

Sentence affirmed for murderer who avoided death penalty with guilty plea

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: December 8, 2015

A Cleveland man who avoided the death penalty by entering into a plea agreement with the state recently had his appeal overruled by the 8th District Court of Appeals.

Jeremy Rolfes was accused of murdering Gregory Brown in 2004 and the death penalty case made its way through pretrial discovery and motions in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas before Rolfes pleaded guilty in 2005 to an amended charge of aggravated murder with a one-year firearm specification.

Rolfes also entered a plea of guilty to drug trafficking in another case and he was sentenced to a total of 21 years to life in prison.

Earlier this year, Rolfes filed a motion seeking leave to file a delayed appeal, 10 years after he entered his guilty plea.

The motion was granted and, in his appellate brief, Rolfes first argued that the trial court failed to fully advise him of his rights before accepting his pleas.

“Appellant claims the court failed to advise him of the maximum penalties involved, the statutory code sections of the charged crimes, the potential for fines, that he was not subject to early or judicial release and he would be subject to postrelease control,” Judge Frank Celebrezze wrote in the opinion he authored on behalf of the court of appeals’ three-judge panel.

The reviewing court first noted that the trial court did, in fact, mention the maximum penalties, the nature of the charges and any early release.

“When the state was explaining the plea agreement on the record, the prosecutor indicated that for the charge of aggravated murder, the penalty agreed to between the parties was a sentence of 20 years to life in prison without the possibility of early parole,” Celebrezze wrote. “There would also be a consecutive one-year sentence for the firearm specification.”

The trial court also advised Rolfes that, by pleading guilty to aggravated murder, he would be subject to possible incarceration for 20 years to life with no possibility of early release and the one-year sentence for the firearm specification.

“The court failed to advise appellant of the actual sentencing range for aggravated murder, which included life imprisonment without parole or parole eligibility after 20, 25 or 30 years,” Celebrezze wrote.

The failure to inform Rolfes of the maximum penalty, however, was not considered error by the appellate panel.

It held that, since the trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence pursuant to the plea bargain, Rolfes was not prejudiced because he was informed of all of the aspects of the sentence which was actually imposed.

“Appellant was also properly informed of all of the charges against him,” Celebrezze wrote, noting that the trial court failed to state the revised code section for aggravated murder but that this was not prejudicial error.

In his second assignment of error on appeal, Rolfes argued that the trial court’s imposition of postrelease control in the murder case was error.

According to the record of the proceedings, Rolfes was informed that he would not be eligible for early parole but was also advised about postrelease control at the plea hearing.

“At the end of the colloquy, the court informed appellant that he would be subject to five years of postrelease control should he be released from prison,” Celebrezze wrote. “The court did not reference to which charge this period of control related, however, the journal entry of sentence in the (trafficking case) references a period of community control.”

The court of appeals noted that postrelease control is part of the sentence imposed for drug trafficking and that the trial court improperly informed Rolfes that it would be up to five years when, in reality, the postrelease control was discretionary for up to three years.

Rolfes argued that he was prejudiced by the mistake.

“However, the change of plea hearing and the sentencing dealt with two cases and the advisement regarding postrelease control came after the court referenced penalties for both charged crimes,” Celebrezze wrote. “Therefore, it can be said that the advisement about postrelease control, although incorrect in duration, was a proper part of the sentence in the (drug) case.”

The court of appeals also noted that a trial court is not required to inform a defendant about the “possibilities or intricacies of parole” for a sentence that could potentially last for a defendant’s lifetime.

Although it acknowledged that a defendant could be prejudiced by misinformation regarding postrelease control, it held that that was not the case with regard to Rolfes.

“Appellant has failed to show that he would not have entered his plea in light of the significant deal offered by the state in removing the specifications that could have resulted in capital punishment, the three-year firearm specification and dismissing other serious charges including aggravated robbery,” Celebrezze wrote. “The record does not indicate appellant was under the mistaken belief that he would not be subject to parole after his possible release from prison.”

The court of appeals ordered the trial court to correct its mistake by removing any period of postrelease control from the sentencing entry via a nunc pro tunc entry.

The higher court let stand all other elements of the sentence the trial court imposed 10 years ago.

Judges Larry Jones and Kathleen Ann Keough joined Celebrezze to form the majority and affirm the judgment of the Cuyahoga County court.

The case is cited State v. Rolfes, 2015-Ohio-4696.

[Back]