The Akron Legal News

6th District finds guilty plea valid in brutal murder case

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 25, 2013

The 6th District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas last week convicting the defendant, Jeremy Gallant, of murder and tampering with evidence.

According to the facts and procedural background of the case provided by the appellate court, Gallant’s conviction stemmed from an incident that took place on June 1, 2011 when Gallant brutally attacked his wife, Maria Vera Gallant.

The couple had been separated and Maria Vera brought their two children over for a visit.

Gallant was originally indicted on charges of attempted murder, felonious assault and tampering with evidence after he stabbed Maria Vera in the body and head multiple times with a screwdriver.

Gallant’s mother called the police when she was unable to stop him from attacking his wife.

He drove off in Maria Vera’s car after the attack in an attempt to escape.

Two weeks later, Maria Vera died in the hospital from her injuries and Gallant was indicted on additional charges of aggravated murder and grand theft.

He initially entered pleas of not guilty by reason of insanity but an independent evaluation determined that Gallant was competent to stand trial and he withdrew his plea.

He then agreed to a plea agreement, entering pleas of guilty to tampering with evidence and murder. As a result, the remaining counts in the indictment were dismissed.

On May 8, 2012, Gallant was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 15 years on the count of murder.

He received an additional three years for the tampering with evidence charge, to be served consecutively, for a total prison term of 18 years to life.

Gallant requested that he receive credit for jail time served on a separate case, but the trial court denied that request.

Shortly thereafter, Gallant filed his direct appeal to the Sixth District arguing that his constitutional rights were violated because he did not understand the nature of the charges against him and therefore, did not enter his pleas knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.

Specifically, Gallant claimed his recitation of what happened on the night he attacked his wife demonstrated his lack of understanding of the charge of murder, in particular, the word “purposely.”

R.C. 2903.02(A) states, “No person shall purposely cause the death of another.”

At his sentencing hearing, Gallant addressed the court and stated, “I do not believe I killed my wife, but emotions did, in an explosive, passionate rage. It’s a very scary feeling not knowing, not being in control, but being controlled by emotions and I’m thankful no one else was injured through it all. I dread the thought of other scenarios. I just snapped.”

“To the extent appellant argues the trial court erred in convicting him of murder when the recitation of facts suggested voluntary manslaughter, we disagree,” wrote Judge Stephen Yarbrough on behalf of the district’s three-judge appellate panel.

Judge Yarbrough stated that a plea of guilty is a complete admission of all of the elements in a charge and it waives all appealable errors, “unless such errors are shown to have precluded the defendant from voluntarily entering into his or her plea.”

Thus, the appellate court held that Gallant was unable to challenge the elements of his conviction.

“Further, to the extent appellant argues that his pleas was not knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily made, or that the court erred in not informing him of the elements of murder or asking him what he did to meet those elements, we again disagree,” wrote Judge Yarbrough.

The appeals court did admit that, according to previous appellate cases, “a plea may be involuntary either because the accused does not understand the nature of the constitutional protections he is waiving or because he has such an incomplete understanding of the charge that his plea cannot stand as an intelligent admission of guilt.”

Prior to accepting a guilty plea from a defendant, Judge Yarbrough said the trial court is obligated to inform the accused that he is waiving his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, his right to a jury trial, his right to confront his accusers and his right to present witnesses on his behalf.

“The courts of this state have generally held that a detailed recitation of the elements of the charge is not required under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a),” Judge Yarbrough stated.

The appellate panel found Gallant signed a plea agreement which stated the charges, the degree and the maximum sentence for each offense.

The agreement stated that Gallant had been advised of all of his constitutional rights and that he made a voluntary waiver of the rights guaranteed to him.

Gallant’s defense counsel also acknowledged that he had spoken to his client about the case, the plea options and possible defenses.

Gallant also addressed the court after his plea colloquy, saying he was in agreement with the terms of his plea agreement and he was satisfied with the representation of his counsel.

“Appellant’s statements at the sentencing hearing did not indicate that he did not understand the element of purposely,” wrote Judge Yarbrough. “Therefore, we hold that appellant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily given.”

After overruling Gallant’s first assignment of error, the appellate panel proceeded to join the trial court in its denial of Gallant’s request for jail-time credit.

While in prison and unable to make bond, Gallant was found to have violated the terms of his probation in another case.

He was transferred to another facility to serve time for his violation and he claimed that he should have been granted credit for serving that time.

The court of appeals held that a defendant is not entitled to jail-time credit for any period of incarceration which arose from a separate case.

“Because the probation violation was not related to the murder offense for which appellant was convicted and sentenced, the trial court did not err by denying credit for time served on that offense,” Judge Yarbrough concluded.

Gallant’s conviction and sentence were unanimously affirmed. Judge Yarbrough was joined by judges Mark Pietrykowski and James Jenson.

The case is cited State v. Gallant, 2013-Ohio-3953.

[Back]