State v. Bennett, 2012 Ohio 3664

Bennett pled guilty to four charges as amended after a high-speed chase, and was later found in possession of methamphetamine in a detention facility; an officer was seriously injured during the search for the thrown item.
The State dismissed a tampering with evidence charge and downgraded aggravated possession of drugs from a felony of the third degree to a fifth degree; Bennett pled to three third-degree felonies and one fifth-degree felony.
A 12-year prison sentence was imposed; Bennett moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the court denied without a hearing.
On appeal, Bennett challenged the plea colloquy for Rule 11 compliance and the waiver of rights, the post-sentence motion to withdraw his pleas, and the sentencing decision.
The court resolved the issues by upholding the plea colloquy and waiver as adequate, dismissing the withdrawal-plea claim for lack of appellate jurisdiction, and affirming the sentence as within statutory limits and properly discretionary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea colloquy adequately informed waiver of rights	Bennett argues the judge failed to notify him clearly about waiving rights	State argues the court conveyed sufficient information; Barker standard applies	Plea informed; waiver valid under Barker
Whether Bennett knowingly, intelligently waived the right to testify and to compulsory process	Bennett contends improper or incomplete guidance on rights	Waiver supported by oral colloquy and written form	Waiver knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily ensured
Whether the post-sentence motion to withdraw the guilty pleas was properly addressed on appeal	Bennett contends trial court erred by denying withdrawal without a hearing	Appeal jurisdiction lacking due to misdesignated judgment	Assignment dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether sentencing relied on improper or irrelevant factors and thus violated law	Bennett claims Aryan Brotherhood membership and officer-injury evidence were improper	Court may consider relevant evidence to assess risk and deterrence	Sentence within statutory range; court did not abuse discretion

State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (2011) (plea colloquy sufficiency; intelligible explanation suffices)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (nonverbatim compliance with Rule 11 allowed if rights explained intelligibly)
Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 (1992) (admission of membership evidence may be admissible to show bias or recidivism risk)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (two-step review of sentencing; correct discretion within framework)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (restructuring of sentencing procedure; review for discretion)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000) (due process considerations in sentencing; constitutionally permissible factors)
Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862 (1983) (limitations on considering improper factors in sentencing)
State v. Dykas, 185 Ohio App.3d 763 (2010) (foreseeability of harm in sentencing; relevance of injuries)