2022 Ohio 1222
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Christopher Blouir was indicted on aggravated murder, two murder counts, felonious assault (with firearm specs), and carrying a concealed weapon; he changed his not-guilty plea to guilty on all counts.
- The court advised Blouir of maximum penalties, merger of Counts 1–4, and that the State would elect to sentence on Count 1 (aggravated murder).
- Plea colloquy covered rights waived, limited appellate rights from a guilty plea, parole eligibility for murder counts, and post-release-control possibilities for the non-elected counts.
- At sentencing the State sought life without parole; the court imposed 25 years to life + 3 years (gun spec) on aggravated murder and a consecutive 18 months on the carrying-concealed-weapon count (aggregate 29.5 years to life).
- Blouir appealed raising three assignments: (1) plea was not knowing/intelligent (Crim.R. 11 errors re: appeal rights, post-release control, separate plea), (2) R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) is unconstitutional, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and for failing to object to Crim.R. 11(C)(3) noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blouir) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing/intelligent under Crim.R.11 (misleading statements about right to appeal and post-release control; failure to take separate plea under Crim.R.11(C)(3); failure to advise of possible consecutive sentences) | Court misled him about ability to appeal sentence (R.C.2953.08 limits), misstated post-release control, and failed to take separate plea/advise on consecutive exposure | Trial court substantially complied with Crim.R.11; Patrick permits appeals on constitutional grounds; post-release-control statements were accurate given unresolved election; no prejudice shown | Plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; no Crim.R.11 error requiring vacatur |
| Whether R.C. 2953.08(D)(3) (bar to review under R.C.2953.08 of aggravated-murder sentences) is unconstitutional (equal protection and due process) | Statute denies meaningful appellate review of aggravated-murder sentences and is arbitrary/unconstitutional as applied | Legislature may treat aggravated murder under a distinct statutory sentencing scheme; rational basis supports R.C.2953.08(D)(3); Patrick preserves constitutional appellate review | Statute does not violate equal protection or due process; constitutional challenges remain available under Patrick |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing (failed to present mitigating witnesses/evidence) and for not objecting to alleged Crim.R.11 noncompliance | Counsel performed deficiently by not presenting mitigation witnesses/evidence and not objecting to Crim.R.11 errors, causing prejudice | Counsel presented mitigating factors in argument and Blouir spoke; tactical choices are immune from second-guessing; no prejudice and no meritorious Crim.R.11 claim to object to | Counsel's performance not deficient and no prejudice shown; ineffective-assistance claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Patrick, 164 Ohio St.3d 309 (2020) (R.C.2953.08(D)(3) does not preclude appeals raising constitutional challenges to aggravated-murder sentences)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (trial court misstatements about post-release control can invalidate plea colloquy under Crim.R.11)
- State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 (2018) (distinguishes strict vs. substantial Crim.R.11 compliance and addresses post-release-control advice issues)
- State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 140 (1988) (trial court need not inform defendant at plea colloquy that sentences may run consecutively)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (defendant must subjectively understand plea consequences; slight deviations allowed if totality shows understanding)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)