State v. Langley
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Langley, 2003-Ohio-463.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAWRENCE COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : : Plaintiff-Appellee, : : v. : Case No. 02CA14 : JAMES LANGLEY, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY : Defendant-Appellant. : Released 1/17/03 : Journalized 1/23/03 ___________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: Laura J. Motes, Chillicothe, Ohio, for appellant. Charles Cooper, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for J.B. Collier, Jr., Lawrence County Prosecutor, Ironton, Ohio, for appellee. ___________________________________________________________ Harsha, J. {¶1} Lawrence James Langley appeals the sentence imposed by the County Common Pleas Court and argues that the trial court erred when it rejected his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. We find that the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Langley s motion since Langley made the motion in response to the trial court s denial of a recognizance bond and the court later granted the bond. Langley also contends assistance of counsel. that he received ineffective He alleges that defense counsel did not explain the possible consequences of his guilty pleas and did not adequately communicate with him. We find no evidence of deficient performance on the part of defense counsel regarding entering an a plea. demonstrate how communication explanation In the addition, defense prejudiced of his consequences Langley counsel s defense. failed of to insufficient Finally, Langley argues that the trial court erred in rejecting his plea agreement without giving its reasons. We find that rather than rejecting the plea agreement, the trial court adopted it. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. In November 2001, Langley knocked on the door of {¶2} James and Carolyn Ferguson s residence. He explained that he had been in a car accident and asked if he could use their telephone to call for a ride. The Fergusons invited him in and allowed him to use their telephone. unable to reach anyone, so the Fergusons grandson who gave Langley a ride home. Langley was called their The Fergusons gave their grandson $10.00 for gasoline. {¶3} The next day, Langley returned to the Ferguson s residence stating that he wanted to repay the $10.00. He told the Fergusons that he only had a $50.00 bill but if they would give him $40.00 in change, he would give them the $50.00 bill. After the Fergusons gave Langley the $40.00, he told them that he had to go to his truck to get the $50.00 bill. Langley then went to his truck and drove away, taking the Ferguson s $40.00 with him. The state charged Langley with burglary and theft {¶4} from an elderly person. Langley required him to entered plead into plea to guilty a both agreement that charges. In April 2002, Langley entered guilty pleas to the charges of burglary and theft from an elderly person. The trial court sentenced Langley to two years on the burglary charge and eleven months on the theft charge, the sentences to run concurrently. Langley appeals, raising the following assignments of error: ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1 - Appellant was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel where defense counsel clearly failed to adequately nature and communicate consequences with of a Appellant plea Appellant s entering his guilty plea. or explain agreement prior the to ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2 - The trial court erred in denying Appellant s oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea where it was clear Appellant did not understand the nature and repercussions of the plea and therefore the plea could not have been knowing and voluntary. trial court erred in ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3 - The sentencing Appellant to a period exceeding that agreed upon in the plea agreement where it failed to state the reasons for its rejection of the plea agreement. For {¶5} the sake of clarity, we will Langley s second assignment of error first. address There, Langley argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. court should have According to Langley, the trial realized that his guilty neither knowingly nor voluntarily entered. court should have permitted him to pleas were Therefore, the withdraw his guilty pleas when he requested to do so. While a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty {¶6} plea should be freely and liberally granted, a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing. State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527, 584 N.E.2d 715, State v. Ausman, Ross App. No. 00CA2550, 2000-Ohio-1953. motion to discretion syllabus. The determination of whether to grant a withdraw a of court. the guilty plea Xie at is left paragraph to the two sound of the A trial court s decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea will not be reversed unless the trial court has abused its discretion. abuse of discretion Xie at 528, Ausman, supra. consists of more than error An of judgment; it connotes an attitude on the part of the court that is unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary. State v. Lessin, 67 Ohio St.3d 487, 494, 1993-Ohio-52, 620 N.E.2d 72; Rock v. Cabral (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 108, 112, 616 N.E.2d 218. During the plea hearing, Langley requested that {¶7} he be released prison.1 on recognizance bond prior to going to When imposing sentence, the trial court denied Langley s request to be released on a recognizance bond. Immediately thereafter, Langley asked the court if he could withdraw his pleas. The court denied his request. When permitted to speak, Langley stated: The reason I was going to take this is because I was getting out. I was going to get out for seven days. to go to the box. It was because But if not, I want The following exchange then took place between Langley and the court: LANGLEY: I tried to come to court last week to come in here to talk. I asked last week, I said I wasn t taken [sic] two years. * * * Well, now they come up and they tell me that I m going to get an O.R. Bond till the 1st. big 1 hangup is you COURT: Are you telling me that your want three days out before you go? After Langley s counsel explained the state s sentencing recommendation, he indicated that Langley would like to address the court. At that time, Langley asked the court if he could be released on recognizance bond prior to going to prison. It does not appear that Langley s release on a recognizance bond was a term of the plea agreement. LANGLEY: Yes sir. COURT: That s the big hangup? LANGLEY: That s my big hangup." It {¶8} appears that Langley asked to withdraw his guilty pleas only because the court denied his request for a recognizance bond. Apparently, Langley initially rejected the plea agreement but then decided to accept it after he learned that he could be released on recognizance bond before going to prison. Only after the court denied his request for a recognizance bond did Langley express a desire to exchange withdraw with his Langley, guilty the pleas. court changed granted Langley a recognizance bond. Following its its and mind Considering Langley eventually received the recognizance bond he requested, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion when it denied Langley s Accordingly, motion Langley s to withdraw second his assignment guilty of pleas. error is overruled. In his first assignment of error, Langley argues {¶9} that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He states that in the time between his arraignment and his guilty pleas, he counsel. In counsel failed had only addition, to limited Langley adequately consequences of his guilty pleas. contact contends explain with defense that defense the possible {¶10} Reversal assistance first, of that second, that defense. of counsel a requires counsel s the conviction that performance deficient for the was performance ineffective defendant show, deficient, and, prejudiced the State v. Smith, 89 Ohio St.3d 323, 327, 2000- Ohio-166, 731 N.E.2d 645, citing Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; State v. Bradley (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 142, 538 N.E.2d 373. Defense counsel s representation must fall below an objective standard of reasonableness terms of ineffective assistance. to be deficient Bradley, supra. in If one component of the Strickland test disposes of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, it is not necessary to address both components. Strickland, Bradley. Moreover, a defendant who has pled guilty must demonstrate that, but for his counsel s errors, he would not have pled guilty. Hill v. Lockhart (1985), 474 U.S. 53, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203. See, also, State v. Martin (June 24, 1997), Lawrence App. No. 96CA53. {¶11} Langley assistance of contends counsel that because he received defense counsel ineffective failed to explain the nature and consequences of his plea agreement. According to Langley, he had previously stated that he would not accept a two-year plea agreement, yet defense counsel allowed him to enter guilty pleas pursuant to such an agreement. Langley claims that he did not understand what pleading he was consequences of those guilty to We pleas. or the are potential unpersuaded by Langley s argument. {¶12} On the day of the plea hearing, Langley filled out a form entitled Proceeding on Plea of Guilty . The form contained questions designed to ensure that Langley understood the consequences of entering a guilty plea. that form, Langley indicated that defense counsel explained what might happen if he pled guilty. On had He also indicated that he understood what was taking place at the plea hearing. the charge When asked if he understood the nature of and the answered yes. maximum penalty involved, Langley In two separate questions the form asked if Langley was making this plea of [his] own free will. Both times, Langley answered affirmatively. court gave throughout Langley the a plea number of hearing. Moreover, the opportunities At no time express confusion about what was transpiring. to did speak Langley Even after the court sentenced him, Langley did not question the term of years imposed. Instead, Langley questioned the court s denial of a recognizance bond. he had previously rejected As for Langley s claim that a two-year plea agreement, Langley indicated at the plea hearing that he accepted the plea agreement because he thought he was going to be released on a recognizance bond before going to prison. {¶13} In pursuing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must overcome a strong presumption that his counsel s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional U.S. at 689. to overcome assistance. See Strickland, 466 Langley has not presented sufficient evidence this presumption. He alleges that defense counsel did not explain the possible consequences of his guilty pleas. suggest However, there is nothing in the record to deficient performance on the part of defense counsel. {¶14} Langley also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to adequately communicate with him. According to Langley, he had limited contact with defense counsel prior to the plea hearing. At the plea hearing, Langley stated: I tried to come to court last week to come in here to talk. * * * And they come back and tell me that he s going to find out my trial date and he leaves. nothing since. That s fine. I ain t heard That s fine and dandy. * * * {¶15} Langley has failed to demonstrate that, but for the lack of communication between defense counsel and himself, he would not have pled guilty. During the plea hearing, Langley asked to be released on a recognizance bond prior to going to prison. had accepted the plea He later indicated that he agreement because he would be released on a recognizance bond. believed he At the end of the hearing, the court granted Langley a three-day release on recognizance bond. Thus, the court granted Langley the recognizance bond he requested. how increased contact with Langley does not explain defense counsel would have impacted his decision to plead guilty. Therefore, we find that defense counsel s actions did not prejudice Langley s defense. Accordingly, Langley s fist assignment of error is overruled. {¶16} In his third assignment of error, Langley argues that the trial court erred when it rejected the parties plea agreement without giving its reasons for doing so. Langley contends that the trial court s sentence exceeded the sentence contemplated by the plea agreement and, thus, was a rejection of the plea agreement. {¶17} Generally, we review a trial court s rejection of a plea agreement under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Rhea (Feb. 21, 1992), Ross App. No. 1779. However, we find no evidence to suggest that the trial court rejected the plea agreement entered into by the parties. {¶18} According to Langley, the plea agreement provided for a maximum sentence of two years for both charges, to run concurrently. Langley contends that the trial court imposed a sentence greater than that agreed upon when it sentenced him to eleven months for theft in addition to two years for burglary. {¶19} At the plea hearing, the state indicated that it had previously made a recommendation regarding sentencing and that the court had accepted recommendation.2 the Defense counsel agreed, stating, The recommendation that we discussed with Mr. Cooper was two years. be concurrent. sentenced him When to two the years court on And that would sentenced the Langley, it charge and burglary eleven months on the theft charge, the sentences to run concurrently. At no time during the plea hearing did Langley question the sentence or object to the sentence as being in excess of the plea agreement. Langley understood that he would be imprisoned for a maximum of two years with his sentences to be served concurrently. doesn't understand the concept of He apparently concurrent sentencing whereby he would receive a two-year sentence on one charge and an equal or lesser sentence on the other charge, which 2 The record does not indicate when this sentencing recommendation occurred and there is no transcript of it included in the record. runs at the same time as the two year sentence. most he can serve is two years. Thus the Nothing in the record indicates that the parties plea agreement contemplated a sentence different from that entered by the trial court. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not reject the parties plea agreement. Accordingly, Langley s third assignment of error is overruled. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. JUDGMENT ENTRY It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and that the Appellee recover of Appellant costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. IF A STAY OF EXECUTION OF SENTENCE AND RELEASE UPON BAIL HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED BY THE TRIAL COURT OR THIS COURT, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed sixty days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow Appellant to file with the Ohio Supreme Court an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the sixty day period, or the failure of the Appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court in the forty-five day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Ohio Supreme Court. Additionally, if the Ohio Supreme Court dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of sixty days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. Evans, P.J. & Kline, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion. For the Court BY: _______________________ William H. Harsha, Judge NOTICE TO COUNSEL Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
