State v. Alexander
2012 Ohio 4843
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Alexander was indicted on two counts of aggravated robbery with firearm specifications in Stark County.
- He pleaded guilty on January 5, 2011 after a plea colloquy in which the court asked about post-release supervision.
- Crim.R. 11(C) form for the plea stated a mandatory five-year post-release control term.
- The trial court sentenced Alexander to ten years in prison and notified him of five years of post-release control.
- Alexander did not appeal the sentence but later moved to withdraw his guilty plea and for sentencing relief in May 2012.
- The trial court denied the motion; Alexander appealed the denial to the Stark County Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was invalid for failure to notify of post-release control | Alexander argues Crim.R. 11(C)(2) was not satisfied. | State contends substantial compliance suffices for non-constitutional rights. | Sustained substantial-compliance review; plea upheld and judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (failure to advise on post-release control requires vacating plea)
- State v. Jones, 2011-Ohio-1202 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 2011) (distinguishable where court informed defendant of post-release control)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (strict vs substantial compliance for non-constitutional rights)
- State v. Dunham, 2012-Ohio-2957 (5th Dist. 2012) (substantial-compliance standard applied to Crim.R. 11(C))
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (test for substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Knowles, 2011-Ohio-4477 (10th Dist. 2011) (post-release control notification can be substantial-compliance dependent)