A Fifth District Court of Appeals panel vacated the guilty pleas, reversing the conviction, of a Marion man indicted on 51 counts of theft-related offenses for collecting deposits
from prospective customers for home-improvement projects that he never completed.

The panel determined that 34-year-old Ryan Needels could not have entered his guilty plea knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily, as prescribed by the Rules of Criminal Procedure, on account of the Delaware County Common Pleas Court’s failure to advise him of the possibility that he could be assessed a fine.

“Because a no-contest or guilty plea involves a waiver of constitutional rights, a defendant’s decision to enter a plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary,” Fifth District Presiding Judge William Hoffman wrote for the 2-1 panel.

A Delaware grand jury indicted Needels in 2023 for activities occurring from June 7, 2021, to Oct. 31, 2022, case background provided.

Using Facebook and his cellphone, he offered to complete home-improvement projects for individuals, accepting payment deposits but neither providing materials for the job nor completing any work.

Needels did not refund the deposits paid by customers.

The indictment encompassed 21 victims, summary detailed.

He entered a guilty plea to engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, telecommunications fraud and 21counts of theft, and the prosecuting attorney dismissed the remaining charges of the indictment.

The parties jointly recommended a sentence of five years in prison, and restitution in the amount of $496,050, summary continued.

The trial court sentenced him five to seven-and-a-half years of incarceration for engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, five years for
telecommunications fraud and 18 months for each of the 21 grand-theft convictions, to be served concurrently.

Having also admitted to community-control violations regarding cases in 2019 and 2020, Needels was sentenced to 12 months and 18 months, respectively, to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to the 2023 sentence.

The resulting aggregate prison term was seven-and-a-half to 10 years, summary detailed.

The trial court did not impose a fine, waived court costs and ordered Needels to pay restitution in the amount of $496,050.

Because the sentencing court failed the mention the possibility of fines, Needels appealed the trial court’s convictions.

“The state argues the trial court did not completely fail to notify appellant of a component of the maximum sentence because the trial court informed appellant of restitution, which similar to a fine is a financial component of the sentence,” Huffman continued.

“We disagree. Restitution and fines are two distinct financial sanctions as set forth in R.C. 2929.18(A). Restitution is paid to the victim or victims of the crime, and the amount is based on the victim’s economic loss. A fine, in contrast, is payable to the state, with the amount based on the offender’s income and the seriousness of the offense.”

Huffman wrote that the lower court’s failure to mention that aspect of a maximum sentence constituted a “complete failure” to comply with Crim. R. 11.

“Appellant is therefore not required to demonstrate prejudice to be entitled to vacation of his guilty plea,” he added.

Because Needels’ convictions for community-control violations stemmed from the 2023 conviction, the appellate panel reasoned those, too, must be reversed.

“The judgment of the Delaware County Common Pleas Court is reversed. Appellant’s guilty pleas are vacated, and this case is remanded to that court for further proceedings according to law,” Huffman concluded.

Fifth District Judge Andrew King joined Hoffman’s opinion, while Judge Robert Montgomery dissented on the bases that no fine was imposed, and Needels should have had to demonstrate the lower court ruling was prejudicial against him.