State v. Baker
2017 Ohio 1074
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John David Baker was indicted on multiple drug-related felonies after a controlled buy and search of his residence; he later pled guilty to one count of trafficking in marijuana (4th°) and one count of tampering with evidence (3rd°), with six counts dismissed.
- He also admitted to a post-release control (PRC) violation; the trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms for the felonies and an additional consecutive 784-day term for the PRC violation.
- Appellate counsel followed Anders v. California procedures, filed a brief identifying three potential issues, notified Baker, and moved to withdraw; Baker filed no pro se brief.
- Counsel’s three potential assignments of error were (1) whether Baker’s pleas were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent under Crim.R. 11; (2) ineffective assistance for failing to challenge the search warrant/timing; and (3) whether the Lucas County court had jurisdiction to impose a sentence for a Wood County PRC violation.
- The Sixth District independently reviewed the record: it found Crim.R. 11 compliance, rejected the ineffective-assistance claim (noting waiver by guilty plea and no showing plea was unknowing), upheld the warrant execution timing under Crim.R. 45, and held the court could impose a PRC sanction regardless of which court imposed the original term.
- The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, found the appeal frivolous, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and ordered appellate costs to Baker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Baker) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Validity of guilty plea under Crim.R. 11 | Court complied with Crim.R. 11; plea was knowing and voluntary | Plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent | Trial court fully complied; plea upheld |
| 2. Ineffective assistance for not challenging search warrant (probable cause/timing/knock-and-announce waiver) | Even if not challenged, affidavit supported probable cause; timing complied with Crim.R. 45; waiver of knock-and-announce justified by safety/other facts | Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion and challenge warrant | Claim waived by guilty plea absent showing plea was unknowing; record does not show deficient performance or prejudice; claim rejected |
| 3. Jurisdiction to sentence for out-of-county PRC violation (Wood County) | R.C. 2929.141(A) permits any court to impose a prison term for a PRC violation regardless of which court imposed original term | Lucas County lacked jurisdiction to impose PRC sanction for Wood County supervision | Trial court had authority to impose PRC prison term; upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for appointed counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Ballard v. Ohio, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (Crim.R. 11 purpose: ensure plea is voluntary and intelligent)
- Colbert v. Ohio, 71 Ohio App.3d 734 (1991) (strict compliance required for constitutional rights under Crim.R. 11)
- Stewart v. Ohio, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 matters)
- Nero v. Ohio, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance means defendant subjectively understands consequences)
- Hale v. Ohio, 119 Ohio St.3d 118 (2008) (Strickland standard reiterated for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Barnett v. Ohio, 73 Ohio App.3d 244 (1991) (guilty plea generally waives ineffective-assistance claims unless plea was unknowing)