2013 Ohio 3838
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Barnett pled no contest to trafficking heroin under R.C. 2925.03(A)(2)&(C)(6)(e) in Scioto County, with remaining counts dismissed.
- January 17, 2012, Scioto County Grand Jury returned a nine-count indictment charging trafficking and other offenses.
- At a November 5, 2012 hearing, the trial court ensured Barnett understood rights and consequences of a plea, then accepted the no contest plea and found him guilty.
- At sentencing, the court informed Barnett it would impose a ten-year prison term.
- Barnett argued the record lacked evidence showing (1) a juvenile in the vicinity and (2) the trafficking occurred in Scioto County.
- The court ultimately affirmed the conviction on appeal; a later entry clarified the finality of the judgment after an appellate stay and dismissal timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the plea violate Crim.R. 11 by lacking evidentiary basis? | Barnett argues no evidence showed a juvenile nearby or Scioto County venue. | Barnett contends Crim.R. 11(B)(2) does not save the plea due to missing factual basis. | No merit; Crim.R. 11(B)(2) cures the deficiency; venue/factually admitted by no contest. |
| Was there error in the indictment's venue/juvenile proximity elements? | State argues the no contest admission encompassed Scioto County and vicinity of a juvenile. | Barnett contends lack of evidence precludes conviction for those elements. | No error; admission under no contest covers the alleged facts in the indictment. |
| Did Crim.R. 11(F) require the record to recite the underlying agreement verbatim? | State contends the record sufficiently conveyed the agreement. | Barnett asserts failure to state the underlying agreement on the record. | Substantial compliance; any deficiency is harmless error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. State, 60 Ohio App.2d 182 (1st Dist. 1978) (Crim.R. 11(B)(2) can supply missing facts for a no contest plea)
- State v. Hicks, 2012-Ohio-3831 (4th Dist.) (invited error doctrine; negotiated plea issues)
- State v. Rizer, 2011-Ohio-5702 (4th Dist.) (invited error doctrine; negotiated plea issues)
- State v. Marcum, 2013-Ohio-2189 (4th Dist. Hocking) (appeal on suppression issues; plea terms)
- State v. Robinson, 2008-Ohio-3972 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga) (plea negotiations; error preservation)