Login | November 06, 2024
Appellate court upholds theft, receiving stolen property conviction
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 30, 2024
A Fifth District Court of Appeals panel affirmed the conviction of a Columbus man on charges of theft and receiving stolen property, despite the man’s assertion that his written guilty plea was insufficient to convict him.
The 3-0 panel held that the record demonstrated that the trial judge was compliant with Criminal Rule 11 on pleas and supported the trial judge’s determination that the pleas of 42-year-old Joshua Johnson were made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.
“Nothing forbids a criminal defendant from entering a written, as opposed to an oral, plea of guilty,” Fifth District Judge Scott Gwin wrote for the court.
According to case summary, a Delaware County grand jury indicted Johnson Sept. 28, 2023, on two counts of theft, a single count of theft from a person in a protected class and a count of receiving stolen property––all fifth-degree felonies.
Johnson was incarcerated in prison on an unrelated offense at the time of his arraignment.
On March 26, 2024, the trial judge filed a judgement entry scheduling a change of plea hearing for April 5, 2024.
Johnson, his attorney and the prosecutor signed a plea agreement April 5 in which Johnson agreed to enter guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment, while the state agreed to dismiss two counts, summary continued.
Additionally, the parties recommended that sentences run concurrent to one another. The state also agreed to cap the sentencing recommendation at six months in prison.
Johnson acknowledged that he understood the agreement and had reviewed the agreement with his attorney.
The parties also executed a written, four-page withdrawal of Johnson’s not guilty plea and written pleas of guilty to the two counts.
In the document, Johnson admitted that he committed the theft offenses and acknowledged that “my pleas of guilty are freely, voluntarily and intelligently made with full and complete understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences, including the maximum penalty.”
He further acknowledged that he had been advised that prison terms for multiple charges––even if consecutive sentences are not mandatory––may be imposed consecutively by the court.
Noting Johnson’s record of previous convictions for theft and other offenses, the trial judge sentenced Johnson to a prison term of 12 months for one count and 12 months for the other, to be served consecutively and consecutive to prison terms imposed in Franklin County, summary provided.
Johnson appealed to the Fifth District that the Delaware Common Pleas Court erred when it failed to obtain an oral guilty plea from Johnson as required by Crim.R. 11(A). Gwin examined a single line of the specific rule, which states: “All other pleas may be made orally either in-person or by remote contemporaneous video.”
“By using the word ‘may,’ the rule does not mandate an ‘oral’ plea as the only manner for a defendant to enter a plea,” the judge reasoned. “The rule recognizes the difference between a mandatory written plea, i.e. not guilty by reason of insanity, and a permissive oral plea, i.e., all other pleas. Johnson points to no authority for the proposition that a defendant cannot enter a written plea of guilty, as opposed to an oral plea of guilty.”
Fifth District Presiding Judge Patricia Delaney and Judge Andrew King joined Gwin’s opinion.
Copyright © 2024 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved