State v. Allen
2013 Ohio 1656
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Allen was charged with three counts of felonious assault and one count of vandalism after an incident involving Ajoy Gill and her brother Floy Gill.
- Prior to trial, the state offered a plea to amend Count 1 to attempted felonious assault; Allen rejected the plea twice.
- During trial, some charges were dismissed; 911 calls surfaced late, and the defense sought to accept the previously offered plea.
- Allen failed to appear on the second day; the jury found her guilty of felonious assault (Count 1), not guilty on Count 3, and guilty of vandalism.
- Posttrial, the court sentenced Allen to two years on Count 1 and six months on the vandalism count, plus restitution to Mutual Aid Exchange, a third‑party insurer.
- The trial court’s restitution to a third-party insurer was later found improper, and the judgment was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion rejecting the plea | Allen argues the court should have considered the late‑discovered 911 calls. | Allen contends circumstances warranted accepting the plea despite the blanket rule. | Yes, court abused discretion by enforcing blanket rule. |
| Whether restitution to a third‑party insurer was proper | State contends restitution to insurer is permissible. | Allen argues restitution to insurer was unauthorized by statute. | No; restitution to a third party insurer was improper. |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel issue was preserved or moot | Allen claimed ineffective assistance due to trial conduct. | Not necessary to address given disposition. | Moot after ruling on restitution and plea issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fitzgerald, 188 Ohio App.3d 701, 2010-Ohio-3721 (8th Dist. (Ohio) 2010) (abuse of discretion when blanket policy used to reject pleas)
- State v. Switzer, 2010-Ohio-2473 (8th Dist. (Ohio) 2010) (blanket policy not to accept pleas abused discretion)
- State v. Raymond, 2006-Ohio-3259 (10th Dist. (Ohio) 2006) (court must assess facts, not rely on policy)
- State v. Carter, 124 Ohio App.3d 423, 706 N.E.2d 409 (8th Dist. (Ohio) 1997) (policy-based refusal to accept pleas improper)