The Akron Legal News

Judges rule court properly determined defendant understood his guilty plea

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 2, 2015

In a recent split decision, the 10th District Court of Appeals affirmed that a man understood the rights he was waiving when he pleaded guilty to aggravated murder with a firearm specification.

The 2-1 opinion overruled Terrille Ellis’ argument that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas established only that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, but did not assure that he was intelligently pleading guilty.

“Here, an examination of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea, including additional record evidence, demonstrates that Ellis knowingly and voluntarily understood that by pleading guilty he was waiving his constitutional rights,” Judge Gary Tyack wrote for the majority.

The facts of the case state that Ellis was charged with aggravated murder, aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary, all of which contained firearm specifications, as well as two counts of having a weapon while under a disability.

He ultimately reached an agreement with the state in which he pleaded guilty to aggravated murder with a firearm specification and the state dismissed the remaining counts.

At the plea hearing, the trial court read the charges and asked if Ellis was voluntarily pleading guilty to them. He affirmed that he was. The court then explained that the guilty plea would allow the judge to find Ellis guilty and proceed to sentencing, which could include up to life in prison without parole and a $25,000 fine. Ellis again stated that he was aware of that.

Further, the court explained that a guilty plea would waive Ellis’ right to a jury trial and all the things that entailed. It then asked if he was giving up those rights voluntarily and he said that he was.

Finally, the court asked if Ellis understood that if he did not testify against his co-defendant the plea deal could be withdrawn. He stated that he was aware of that stipulation.

The prosecution then read the statement of facts into the record.

They explained that in November 2013, Melanie Spears recruited Ellis and Derrick Robinson to rob Shaun Fullen. The group then spent the day planning the robbery and it was agreed that Ellis and Robinson would pretend to rob Spears.

Spears then went to Fullen’s house that evening and waited for the events to unravel.

Ellis and Robinson eventually entered the home under the guise that they were robbing Spears. As the events progressed, the men confronted Fullen in the bathroom and Ellis fired a single shot that struck and killed Fullen.

The group then ransacked the house, taking cash and guns before fleeing the area.

After the parties stipulated to those facts, the common pleas court accepted Ellis’ plea and found him guilty of aggravated murder with a firearm specification. It ordered him to serve 23 years to life in prison and he appealed to the 10th District.

“Ellis contends that even though the trial court properly informed him of his constitutional rights, it failed to determine if he actually understood the constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. Ellis argues that the trial court was required to specifically ask him if he understood the rights he was giving up,” Tyack stated.

Upon review, the majority held that a trial court is not required to use any exact language, though stopping after each right to ask the defendant if he or she understands that right and knows that it is being waived is a “better practice.”

The judges found that the trial court repeatedly asked Ellis if he was voluntarily waiving specific rights and he continued to answer that he was. They also noted that Ellis signed a guilty plea form stating that he understood the rights he was waiving.

“Thus, despite the trial court’s failure to explicitly ask Ellis if he understood that, by pleading guilty, he was waiving each of the enumerated constitutional rights, the record demonstrates that Ellis was fully and meaningfully informed of the rights he was waiving and that his plea was entered into voluntarily,” Tyack wrote.

Judge Jennifer Brunner joined Tyack in finding that the record clearly established that Ellis knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights. The two formed the majority and affirmed Ellis’ conviction.

In a separate opinion, Judge Julia Dorrian dissented.

She stated that the majority opinion required strict compliance for a trial court’s duty to inform a defendant of his or her constitutional rights but improperly required only substantial compliance for the court’s duty to determine if the defendant understands the rights and what it means to waive them.

“I believe this is an incorrect interpretation of the rule and existing precedent,” Dorrian wrote.

She further noted that none of the trial court’s questions determined if Ellis understood his rights.

“After informing Ellis of his constitutional rights and explaining that he was waiving those rights by pleading guilty, the trial court asked a single question, inquiring whether Ellis waived those rights voluntarily, but not whether he understood them,” she stated.

Finding that the questions only established the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea and did not address the understanding nature, Dorrian ruled that she would find the court failed to comply with its duties and would find Ellis’ plea invalid.

The case is cited State v. Ellis, 2015-Ohio-3438.

[Back]