State v. Perez
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Perez, 2022-Ohio-4352.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT JACKSON COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : LOUIS PEREZ, : Defendant-Appellant. Case No. 22CA4 22CA6 DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY : ________________________________________________________________ APPEARANCES: Brian T. Goldberg, Cincinnati Ohio, for appellant. Justin Lovett, Jackson County Prosecuting Attorney, and Rachel E. Daehler, Jackson County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Jackson, Ohio, for appellee. ________________________________________________________________ CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT DATE JOURNALIZED:12-1-22 ABELE, J. {¶1} This is an appeal from a Jackson County Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence. Louis Perez, defendant below and appellant herein, assigns one error for review: “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF MR. PEREZ BY ACCEPTING A PLEA OF GUILTY THAT WAS NOT MADE KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY, AND INTELLIGENTLY.” {¶2} In November 2021, appellant entered guilty pleas to the offenses of (1) burglary in violation of R.C. 2911.12(A)(3), a third-degree felony, and (2) having weapons under a disability 2 JACKSON, 22CA4 & 22CA6 in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), also a third degree felony. These charges emanated from appellant’s act of firing a firearm in a residence while under the influence of methamphetamine and with a prior Texas felony drug possession conviction. The parties’ plea agreement included a jointly recommended sentence that required the completion of the Phoenix Program, a community control sanction and the successful completion of Star’s sixmonth program, along with a six-year suspended prison sentence. {¶3} Unfortunately, appellant failed to successfully complete the Phoenix Program and the state requested the trial court revoke appellant’s bond. Eventually, authorities took appellant into custody and the trial court sentenced him to serve two consecutive three-year prison terms. This appeal followed. {¶4} In his sole assignment of error, appellant asserts that he did not enter a knowing, voluntary and intelligent guilty plea. In particular, appellant argues that the trial court did not notify him about the mandatory nature of postrelease control, but instead, informed appellant that his postrelease control sanction would be discretionary. See State v. Gannon, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 15CA16, 2016-Ohio-1007. 3 JACKSON, 22CA4 & 22CA6 {¶5} Appellee, also citing Gannon, agrees with appellant that the trial court did not properly advise him of the applicable post-release control requirements. Thus, because appellant did not enter a knowing intelligent and voluntary guilty plea, the judgment of conviction and sentence should be reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. {¶6} At this juncture, we wish to commend appellant for identifying this sentencing error and the appellee for its candor and agreement with appellant. We also wish to point out that errors in sentencing, since Ohio’s 1996 felony sentencing overhaul, are, regrettably, very common place. Ohio’s overly complex felony sentencing statutory scheme is the primary reason that felony sentencing cases are now routinely the subject of extensive appellate review. Prior to 1996, a defendant’s criminal sentence was rarely the subject of appellate review. It is fundamental that governments should strive to create a system of criminal laws and sentences that citizens can easily understand. regard. Unfortunately, Ohio’s scheme falls short in this Consequently, we sympathize with the trial court, and all Ohio trial courts, in their effort to issue criminal sentences for individuals who have committed felony offenses that fully comply with Ohio’s statutes. 4 JACKSON, 22CA4 & 22CA6 {¶7} Accordingly, based upon the foregoing reasons, we sustain appellant’s assignment of error, reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. 5 JACKSON, 22CA4 & 22CA6 JUDGMENT ENTRY It is ordered that the judgment be reversed and this cause be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Appellant shall recover of appellee the 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 Jackson 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 60 days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of the proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day period, or the failure of the appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 45-day appeal period pursuant to Rule II, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute that mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Smith, P.J. & Hess, J.: Concur in Judgment & Opinion For the Court BY:_______________________________ Peter B. Abele, 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.
