State v. Billiter
106 N.E.3d 785
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Jarod Billiter was indicted on multiple felony counts for trafficking and possession of heroin and fentanyl, plus a misdemeanor child endangering charge; he initially pleaded not guilty.
- On September 17, 2015, parties announced a negotiated plea: guilty to four counts with a joint recommendation (initially) of a 3-year aggregate prison term with judicial-release eligibility after 2 years, conditioned on good conduct and program participation.
- Sentencing was continued to permit Billiter to be released briefly to witness his child's birth under electronic monitoring and bond conditions that forbade use of illegal/nonprescribed drugs and allowed random drug tests.
- At the October 16, 2015 sentencing hearing Billiter tested positive for heroin and Suboxone; the parties (defense, prosecutor, and Billiter) agreed to a renegotiated agreed sentence of 4.5 years with judicial-release eligibility after 3 years, which the court imposed.
- Billiter appealed arguing (1) his guilty plea was not knowing/intelligent/voluntary (because the court breached the original plea, counsel was ineffective, and plain error occurred) and (2) the court erred by failing to make consecutive-sentence findings. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Billiter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Billiter's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary | The plea complied with Crim.R. 11; the plea and the later renegotiation were agreed to by defendant, counsel, and prosecutor | The plea was involuntary because the court breached the original plea after Billiter tested positive and counsel failed to enforce original deal or move to withdraw plea | Held: Plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; Crim.R.11 requirements satisfied and Billiter consented to the renegotiated agreed sentence |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not enforcing original plea or seeking plea withdrawal | State: no deficiency because Billiter breached bond conditions and counsel’s arguments would lack merit | Billiter: counsel should have objected to voiding original plea or sought withdrawal | Held: No ineffective assistance; counsel not deficient where argument had no legal basis because defendant breached bond |
| Whether trial court committed plain error in voiding the original plea agreement | State: no plain error; defendant breached bond and parties renegotiated with consent | Billiter: court erred in voiding original plea without proper basis | Held: No plain error; appellate courts will not apply plain-error relief where no manifest miscarriage and defendant breached agreement |
| Whether the sentence is appealable for lack of consecutive-sentence findings | State: sentence was an agreed, jointly recommended sentence authorized by law and thus not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) even if court omitted consecutive findings | Billiter: sentence required consecutive-sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and is therefore appealable | Held: Sentence was an agreed sentence; under Sergent an agreed sentence including discretionary consecutive terms is authorized by law and not appealable despite omitted findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Veney v. Ohio, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- Engle v. Issacs, 660 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1996) (same standard for guilty pleas)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 16 N.E.3d 659 (Ohio 2014) (trial court must state consecutive-sentence findings on record and in entry but need not state reasons)
- Sergent v. Ohio, 69 N.E.3d 627 (Ohio 2016) (an agreed joint recommendation with discretionary consecutive terms is authorized by law and not appealable even if statutory consecutive findings are omitted)
- Underwood v. Ohio, 922 N.E.2d 923 (Ohio 2010) (explaining R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) limits appeals of jointly recommended sentences)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedures for counsel seeking to withdraw when no meritorious appeal exists)