State v. Bankston
2017 Ohio 9305
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Marcus Bankston assaulted his girlfriend’s father during a June 16, 2016 confrontation at the girlfriend’s parents’ home, striking the father in the head with a firearm and causing serious lacerations requiring emergency treatment.
- Bankston was indicted on six felonies; he pled guilty on January 19, 2017 to attempted aggravated burglary (Count 4, amended) and felonious assault (Count 5); four other felonies were dismissed under the plea agreement.
- On March 16, 2017 the trial court sentenced Bankston to two consecutive four-year prison terms (total eight years) and ordered restitution to both parents for medical and property damages.
- Bankston appealed, arguing (1) his plea was involuntary because the court misinformed him and failed to explain the presumption in favor of prison, and (2) the two convictions were allied offenses of similar import.
- The appellate court reviewed the plea under the de novo standard, considered the totality of the record (including the written plea agreement), and found no prejudice from any colloquy errors.
- The court affirmed the convictions and sentence but remanded for a nunc pro tunc correction of a clerical error in the sentencing entry (wrong Revised Code section listed).
Issues
| Issue | Bankston's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was involuntary because trial court misinformed him and failed to explain presumption favoring prison | Court failed to explain the presumption against probation and other plea particulars, rendering plea involuntary | Written plea agreement and colloquy show Bankston understood the plea, waived rights knowingly, and was aware prison was presumed; no prejudice shown | Plea was valid; substantial compliance with Crim.R.11 and no prejudicial impact; assignment denied |
| Whether the two convictions are allied offenses of similar import under R.C. 2941.25 | The attempted aggravated burglary and felonious assault are allied and should merge into a single conviction | Offenses victimized two separate persons (mother and father); harms are separate and restitution ordered separately, so offenses are of dissimilar import | Not allied; convictions may stand separately |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered)
- State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (oral plea colloquy ambiguities may be clarified by the written plea)
- State v. Ruff, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (standards for allied offenses of similar import)