2023 Ohio 605
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- In March 2019 Berry caused a crash while driving under the influence; a passenger (his girlfriend) died and two children suffered serious injuries. He was indicted on eight counts (aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, and OVI among others).
- After two days of trial in September 2019, Berry pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated vehicular homicide (Count 1), one count of aggravated vehicular assault (Count 3, amended to include two victims), and one misdemeanor OVI (Count 7); remaining counts were nolled.
- At sentencing the court imposed 10 years on Count 1, 7 years on Count 3, and 180 days on Count 7, ordered Counts 1 and 3 to run consecutively, and imposed fines, license suspensions, and postrelease control.
- Berry filed a delayed appeal arguing the trial court violated Crim.R. 11 by failing to advise him of the aggregate maximum prison term that could result from consecutive sentences at the plea hearing.
- The trial-colloquy showed the court informed Berry of the maximum penalties for each individual offense, fines, license suspensions, and postrelease-control consequences, but did not state an aggregate maximum sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Berry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim.R. 11 required advising defendant of aggregate maximum sentence when pleading guilty to multiple counts | Court satisfied Crim.R.11 by advising defendant of the maximum penalty for each charged offense; aggregate total not required where consecutive sentences are discretionary | Crim.R.11 (amended 1998 changing “charge” to “charges”) requires advising of the aggregate maximum that could result from consecutive sentences | Affirmed: No Crim.R.11 violation; advising per-count maxima suffices when consecutive sentences are discretionary and defendant shows no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (holding trial court need not advise defendant of cumulative maximum for multiple offenses; only individual-count maxima required)
- State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 (distinguishing Johnson where postrelease-control consecutive sentence was mandatory and thus must be disclosed)
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (establishing three-step inquiry for Crim.R.11 noncompliance and prejudice analysis)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (explaining Crim.R.11’s purpose: ensure pleas are voluntary and intelligent)