State v. Bleam

2025-Ohio-4629 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third Appellate District · October 6, 2025 · No. 16-25-02

Summary

This Ohio Court of Appeals decision reviews a defendant's appeal of a first-degree misdemeanor domestic violence conviction following a guilty plea. The appellant argued that the trial court failed to properly advise him of his constitutional rights and that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily due to mental health concerns. The appellate court found that the trial court complied with Criminal Rule 11 requirements for petty offenses and that the record demonstrated the defendant understood the consequences of his plea. Consequently, the court overruled the assignment of error and affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Court
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third Appellate District
Writing for the Court
Mark C. Miller; Juergen A. Waldick; John R. Willamowski
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
October 6, 2025
Docket number
16-25-02
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed from the Upper Sandusky Municipal Court's judgment accepting his guilty plea to first-degree-misdemeanor domestic violence and imposing sentence.
Standard of review
The court reviewed whether the trial court complied with the applicable provisions of Ohio Crim.R. 11 and whether any noncompliance prejudiced Bleam. Under State v. Dangler, the defendant must demonstrate prejudice unless the alleged noncompliance is one of the types that excuses that showing.
Precedential value
Published opinion
Parties
Brent M. Bleam Jr. v. State of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureplea bargainingappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the municipal court complied with Crim.R. 11 when accepting Bleam's guilty plea to a misdemeanor petty offense.
  2. Whether the court was required to orally advise Bleam of the constitutional trial rights listed in Crim.R. 11(C)(2).
  3. Whether Bleam's alleged mental-health issues rendered his guilty plea unknowing, unintelligent, or involuntary.

Holdings

  1. The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 because, before accepting the plea, it informed Bleam that a guilty plea was a complete admission of guilt and otherwise conducted a sufficient plea colloquy.
  2. The trial court was not required to advise Bleam orally or in writing of the rights listed in Crim.R. 11(C)(2), because that provision applies to felony cases and not to a guilty plea involving a misdemeanor petty offense.
  3. The record did not establish that Bleam's anxiety, PTSD, or prior use of medication prevented him from understanding the proceedings or the consequences of his guilty plea.

Key quotations

The plea of guilty is a complete admission of the defendant’s guilt. (¶ 7)
Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the Upper Sandusky Municipal Court. (¶ 15)

Factual background

Bleam was charged with first-degree-misdemeanor domestic violence. At arraignment, he confirmed that he had received and read an explanation of his rights and plea options, understood the charge and potential penalties, and understood that a guilty plea was a complete admission of guilt. He signed a written waiver of constitutional rights, denied being impaired by medication, drugs, or alcohol, and later referenced anxiety and PTSD, but the record showed that he actively participated in the plea colloquy and understood the proceedings.

Procedural history

Bleam was charged with domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A). He pleaded guilty in the Upper Sandusky Municipal Court after the court explained the charge, possible penalties, and effect of a guilty plea. The municipal court sentenced him to a $250 fine and 180 days in jail, with 130 days suspended conditioned on one year of community control. The Ohio Third District Court of Appeals affirmed.

Remand instructions

The cause was remanded to the trial court only for execution of the appellate judgment for costs. The municipal court judgment itself was affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Third Appellate District