2012 Ohio 3944
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Bartee was indicted for murder and child endangering in Cuyahoga County; the state amended the murder charge to voluntary manslaughter and nolled the child endangering count.
- Bartee pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter on August 29, 2011, as part of a plea agreement; a presentence investigation was ordered.
- On September 30, 2011, the trial court sentenced Bartee to six years in the Ohio Reformatory for Women.
- Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) required the court to advise if a mandatory post-release control (PRC) period applied and to ensure Bartee understood the maximum penalty.
- Bartee contends the court’s explanation of PRC was inadequate at the plea and that the journal entry for sentencing did not properly notify PRC.
- The court found substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and ultimately affirmed Bartee’s conviction and ruling on PRC notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Bartee’s plea knowingly voluntarily entered regarding PRC? | Bartee argues the court failed to adequately explain mandatory PRC. | Bartee contends she did not understand the consequences of PRC. | Yes, the plea was knowingly and intelligently entered. |
| Did the sentencing journal entry adequately notice PRC? | State contends the journal entry’s phrasing was sufficient and form over substance. | Bartee argues the 'if' language renders notice inadequate requiring another hearing. | Yes, notice was adequate; no new sentencing hearing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (substantial-compliance standard for nonconstitutional rights in plea)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (notice sufficiency; need not remand for new sentencing when proper PRC notice occurs)