State v. Poppel

[Cite as State v. Poppel, 2021-Ohio-2536.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : Appellate Case No. 2020-CA-34 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 2018-CRB-476 : MARKLEY POPPEL : (Criminal Appeal from : Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : : ........... OPINION Rendered on the 23rd day of July, 2021. ........... MARK M. FEINSTEIN, Atty. Reg. No. 0065183, Champaign County Municipal Prosecutor’s Office, 205 South Main Street, Second Floor, Urbana, Ohio 43078 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee DEREK A. DEBROSSE, Atty. Reg. No. 0084183, and MICHAEL A. TRUMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0092506, 503 South Front Street, Suite 240B, Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attorneys for Defendant-Appellant ............. TUCKER, P.J. -2- {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Markley Poppel, appeals from the trial court’s final order of November 9, 2020, in which the trial court overruled his motion to withdraw his plea under Crim.R. 32.1. Poppel, who pleaded guilty to one count of assault in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A), argues in a single assignment of error that the trial court erred by overruling his motion, because at the time he entered his plea, neither the court nor his counsel advised him that under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), he would forfeit his right to own a firearm. We find that the trial court did not err, and its order is therefore affirmed. I. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 2} On May 31, 2018, an officer with the City of Urbana Police Division filed a pair of complaints charging Poppel with assault, a first degree misdemeanor pursuant to R.C. 2903.13(A) and (C)(1), and domestic violence, a first degree misdemeanor pursuant to R.C. 2919.25(A) and (D)(2). Poppel reached a plea agreement with the State, according to which he appeared before the trial court on August 1, 2018, and entered a plea of guilty to the charge of assault. In exchange, the State dismissed the charge of domestic violence. The trial court then sentenced Poppel to 180 days in jail and 24 months of community control, with the jail term suspended on the condition that he complete anger management therapy. {¶ 3} Poppel claims that in “September 2019, [he] attempted to [collect] a firearm that he [had] won in a raffle,” but “his * * * background check [through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System] resulted in a denial,” followed “soon after [by] a letter from [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] that said that [he] was -3- under disability to own a firearm.”1 Appellant’s Brief 4. On July 22, 2020, Poppel filed a motion under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his plea, arguing that his defense attorney had failed to provide effective representation by failing to warn him about the possible loss of his right to own a firearm, and that the trial court had likewise failed to meet its obligation to ensure that his plea was knowing and voluntary. Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea 3-9, July 22, 2020. {¶ 4} The trial court overruled Poppel’s motion without comment …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals