Lakewood v. Lane
2017 Ohio 1039
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Gregory L. Lane, Jr. was charged with DUI (R.C. 4511.19, first-degree misdemeanor), driving without a license (Lakewood ordinance, first-degree misdemeanor), and possession of marijuana (minor misdemeanor). He pled guilty and was sentenced to 180 days with 174 suspended, fines, one year probation, and six-month license suspension.
- Initial arraignment occurred March 12, 2007; the court read rights to the group and continued Lane’s case for one week to obtain counsel. Lane did not return until May 10, 2016 (nine years later).
- On May 10, 2016 the court again read rights to the group, continued one week to allow counsel. On May 17, 2016 Lane appeared without counsel, the court again recited rights, Lane pled guilty, and signed an in-court waiver of counsel.
- Lane argued on appeal that (1) the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(E) by not personally informing him of the effects of a guilty plea, and (2) his jail sentence is invalid because the record does not show a knowing, intelligent waiver of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments and Crim.R. 44.
- The municipal court had repeatedly advised Lane of his rights, informed him of potential penalties (including possible jail), and recorded a signed waiver of counsel dated May 17, 2016.
- The Eighth District affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(E) and that Lane knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived counsel under Crim.R. 44.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court complied with Crim.R. 11(E) before accepting plea | Court substantially complied by advising the group of rights and plea effects | Lane: court erred because it did not personally inform him when called to plead | Affirmed — substantial compliance; group advisement permitted and Lane objectively understood rights |
| Whether waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent under Crim.R. 44 and Sixth Amendment | Court: repeated oral advisements, explicit statement of possible jail, and signed in-court waiver establish valid waiver | Lane: record fails to show a knowing, intelligent waiver; sentence invalid without counsel | Affirmed — waiver made in open court, recorded, and was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; sentence valid |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (substantial compliance standard for Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (defendant must objectively understand plea implications under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Gibson, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (trial court must inquire to ensure waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent)
- State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (waiver must be made with apprehension of nature of charges, punishments, defenses, and mitigating facts)