Youngstown Daily Legal News

Escape charge stands for man who failed to return from furlough for mother's funeral

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 28, 2015

The 12th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed an escape conviction for a man who failed to return to jail after taking a furlough to attend his mother’s funeral.

Sherman Edmonds appealed his escape conviction from the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, asserting that he was improperly denied jail time credit and that the trial court failed to fully inform him of his rights before allowing him to waive his right to counsel.

The three-judge appellate panel disagreed and overruled the assignments of error.

Edmonds was first arrested for theft in October 2013 and was subsequently being held in the Warren County jail, according to case summary.

Because he was still being held when his mother passed away, Edmonds requested a furlough to attend the funeral.

The state granted him a one day furlough on Oct. 29, 2013. It specified that he was to leave at 10 a.m. and return by 4:30 p.m. and that a failure to return would result in escape charges.

Edmonds left the jail as planned but failed to return. He was eventually found during a traffic stop in Dayton on Dec. 26, 2013 and was returned to jail.

The state then charged him with escape. He was appointed counsel and a jury trial was scheduled.

Prior to the trial, however, Edmonds indicated that he wished to represent himself. The trial court held a hearing on the matter and cautioned Edmonds that he would be waiving many benefits with that decision.

“Mr. Edmonds, first of all, this is a terrible idea,” the trial court warned him.

Edmonds responded, “Yes, I know, Your Honor,” but indicated that it is what he wished to do.

The court then affirmed that he was making the decision intelligently, knowingly and voluntarily and allowed him to proceed as he wished.

At the jury trial, the state called judicial clerk Ginger Idle to testify about her conversation with Edmonds concerning his furlough.

Edmonds objected, complaining that Idle’s name was not on the state’s written witness list.

The trial court allowed him to interview Idle outside the presence of the jury to remedy the situation.

She then testified for the state and indicated that she had informed Edmonds of the consequences should he not return from his furlough.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Edmonds guilty of escape and the trial court sentenced him to 30 months in prison.

It refused to give him jail time credit and stated that any credit would be given for the theft charge he was still facing.

The next day, however, the state dismissed that charge.

Edmonds then appealed to the 12th District, first arguing that he was improperly denied jail time credit.

The appellate judges found that Edmonds was charged with escape on Jan. 27, 2014 and waited there for trial until March 20, 2014. However, they determined that he was also being held on the theft charge.

“Even had the escape charge been dismissed, Edmonds would continue to be held in jail on the theft charge. Therefore, Edmonds was not entitled to jail time credit against the sentenced imposed on the escape conviction for the time he spent in jail awaiting trial,” Judge Robert Hendrickson wrote for the court.

Finding that the charges did not arise from the same facts, the appellate judges affirmed the lower court’s decision on the matter.

Edmonds next asserted that he did not properly waive his right to counsel because the trial court did not inform him that self-representation would prevent him from raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal.

The district judges disagreed.

They noted that the trial judge strongly urged Edmonds to use an attorney and thoroughly explained that an attorney would be much better educated on how to proceed during a jury trial.

The trial court explained that an attorney could be appointed if Edmonds could not afford one, that self-representation would hurt his case, that the state would be represented by an experienced attorney, that he would be held to the same rules and standards as an attorney, that self-representation would deprive him of certain appellate issues, and that the court could not help him.

Edmonds, however, stressed that he had completed schooling through the 11th grade, could read and write, was not under the influence of any medications and was not suffering any defect that would affect his decision.

“In addition to the information the trial court informed Edmonds during the colloquy, the written waiver also stated Edmonds was aware of possible defenses and he could not claim his own representation was ineffective on appeal,” Hendrickson stated, overruling the assignment of error.

Edmonds next contended that the trial court should not have permitted Idle to testify because the state failed to inform him that she was a witness.

The appellate judges found evidence that the state had verbally notified Edmonds of Idle’s testimony and that her testimony was duplicative in nature.

They noted that she simply emphasized that Edmonds was informed of the rules of furlough and the consequences of his failure to return, which other evidence had already established.

The judges further stated that Edmonds’ ability to interview her outside the presence of the jury would have rectified any potential error.

“We find the trial court did not err in permitting Idle to testify and providing Edmonds an opportunity to question Idle outside the presence of the jury instead of granting a continuance,” Hendrickson wrote.

The judges also overruled Edmonds’ claim that his conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence, finding that there was ample evidence to show he had been informed of the details of his furlough and his return requirements.

Presiding Judge Robin Piper and Judge Robert Ringland therefore joined Hendrickson in affirming Edmonds’ conviction.

The case is cited State v. Edmonds, 2015-Ohio-2733.

[Back]