State v. Armstrong
2015 Ohio 3343
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Armstrong was charged in January 2014 with multiple counts including two counts of rape with SVP and other specifications, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, and related offenses.
- Prior to trial, in-chambers discussions suggested a sentencing range (roughly three to five or three to six years) for a potential plea.
- Armstrong entered a plea on the day of trial to amended counts, with the state nolling remaining charges; no written plea agreement was entered.
- Defense counsel stated they reviewed the plea with Armstrong and noted potential lengthy prison exposure; the court discussed sentencing factors and maximums, but did not promise a specific sentence.
- At sentencing, the court sentenced Armstrong to a total seven-year term and clarified there was no guaranteed sentence; Armstrong claimed the plea was based on an agreed range.
- Armstrong later moved to withdraw his plea post-sentencing; the trial court denied the motion, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was coerced by the trial court. | Armstrong argues court coerced plea through in-chamber remarks. | Armstrong contends coercive conduct undermined voluntariness. | Coercion not shown; no explicit promise of sentence, record shows voluntariness. |
| Whether the post-sentence withdrawal motion should be granted. | Armstrong bears burden to show manifest injustice for post-sentence withdrawal. | Armstrong asserts the sentence differed from expected range based on plea discussions. | No manifest injustice; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying withdrawal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Byrd, 63 Ohio St.2d 288 (Ohio 1980) (judicial role cautions against coercive plea bargaining)
- State v. Jabbaar, 2013-Ohio-1655 (Ohio 2013) (court scrutiny of judge's plea-participation to ensure voluntariness)
- State v. Kelly, 2010-Ohio-432 (Ohio 2010) (promises during plea render plea involuntary)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. Supreme Court 2012) (requirement of record showing awareness of plea deal in plea bargaining)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea essential)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (abuse of discretion standard in post-plea rulings)
- Padilla, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98187, 2012-Ohio-5892 (Ohio 2012) (written plea agreement and sentencing discussions)