CP Court plea accord upheld on appeal

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

LIMA — A defendant unhappy with the result of a plea-bargain agreement saw the agreement – and related prison terms handed down in Van Wert County Common Pleas Court – upheld by the Third Ohio Court of Appeals in a decision released on Monday.

Matthew Parr of Van Wert, who was 20 when the prison terms were handed down in October 2013, had agreed to a plea bargain that resulted in the dismissal of the most serious charge against him: tampering with evidence, a felony of the third degree.

As part of the agreement, Parr then pleaded guilty to one count each of breaking and entering and possession of criminal tools, both fifth-degree felony offenses, during a change of plea hearing held September 4, 2013.

During his sentencing hearing on October 16, 2013, Judge Charles D. Steele sentenced Parr to 12 months in prison on each remaining count and ordered the sentences to run concurrently (at the same time) with each other.

Parr filed his appeal a month later through attorney Scott Gordon, stating that Judge Steele erred in sentencing him to prison after Parr received a promise from his attorney that he would not receive a prison term if he pleaded guilty.

Writing the unanimous decision, Judge John Willamowski noted that the court record indicates that Judge Steele asked Parr a number of questions prior to accepting his guilty pleas to ascertain if he understood his rights under the law.

Among those questions was one that asked whether Parr was making his plea voluntarily and another that asked if he had consulted fully with his attorney prior to changing his plea, and whether he was satisfied with the legal advice given him.

Parr answered yes to all of those questions.

Judge Steele also asked Parr if he understood that, if the judge accepted his plea, the only thing remaining was to pass sentence, and that the sentence could include up to 12 months in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

Parr again said he understood that a prison sentence could be handed down, but apparently relied on a promise his attorney may, or may not, have given him that he would do no prison time on the charges.

Another portion of the change of plea petition states that “I declare that no officer of this court nor any attorney has promised or suggested that I will receive a lighter sentence or community control or any other form of leniency in exchange for my plea of guilty, and if any one did make such a promise (or) suggestion, I know that he or she had no authority to do it.”

Judge Willamowski noted that the trial judge in a case has the sole right to determine what a defendant’s sentence is. “Regardless of what counsel may, or may not, have told Parr, Parr was informed multiple times that the trial court would be the one determining the sentence,” Willamowski wrote in his opinion, adding that Parr had also indicated that he had not been promised any sentence at both the hearing and in signing the petition.

Judge Willamowski also stressed that Parr had an extensive criminal record, especially for his young age, and that prison was appropriate.

“Parr was clearly aware of the sentence he could receive and is now only before this court because he is unhappy with the sentence he did receive,” Willamowski said in conclusion.

Judges Vern Preston and Richard Rogers, who heard the case with Willamowski, concurred in his decision.