2022 Ohio 3555
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Bobo was indicted on multiple drug and related charges; he pleaded guilty to an amended Count 1 (drug trafficking) as a second-degree felony and other reduced counts; remaining counts on that indictment were dismissed.
- The court informed Bobo his sentence would be mandatory prison, and additionally (incorrectly) told him he could earn up to 15% good-time credit to reduce the term.
- The court immediately sentenced Bobo under the Reagan Tokes indefinite-term scheme to a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 4.5 years.
- After sentencing, defense counsel questioned eligibility for good-time credit; the trial court expressed uncertainty about S.B. 201’s effect.
- Appellant assigned three errors: (1) plea involuntary due to incorrect good-time advice; (2) Reagan Tokes statute unconstitutional; (3) failure to give R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) advisements at sentencing.
- The appellate court found the misstatement about good-time credit but no prejudice (plea stands), rejected the constitutional challenge (relying on en banc Delvallie), and reversed in part/remanded for a limited hearing to give the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) advisements.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bobo's guilty plea was involuntary because the court incorrectly told him he could earn good-time credit on a mandatory sentence. | State conceded the trial court misstated the law on good-time credit. | Bobo argued the misadvice rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary and must be vacated. | Court: Misadvice occurred, but Bobo failed to show prejudice; plea remains valid. |
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional (due process, Sixth Amendment, separation of powers, vagueness, delegation to ODRC). | State maintained the statute is constitutional. | Bobo argued multiple constitutional defects in Reagan Tokes. | Court: Overruled constitutional challenge; statute upheld (following en banc Delvallie). |
| Whether the sentence is contrary to law because the trial court failed to give the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications at sentencing. | State did not successfully show the required advisements were given. | Bobo argued the court failed to provide mandatory oral advisements about the rebuttable-presumption of release and ODRC review. | Court: Trial court failed to give the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) advisements; remanded for a limited hearing to provide them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dangler v. State, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (summarizes Crim.R. 11(C) review and prejudice standards for plea-colloquy errors)
- Clark v. State, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (discusses when incorrect legal statements at plea colloquy require prejudice showing)
- Veney v. State, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Crim.R. 11 principles on plea advisements)
- State v. Stone, 43 Ohio St.2d 163 (purpose of Crim.R. 11 to create an adequate record on plea advisements)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (prejudice standard where plea-colloquy errors are nonconstitutional)
- Marcum v. State, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (standard of appellate review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (U.S. Supreme Court on necessity of knowing and voluntary plea waiving constitutional rights)