State v. Brooks
2011 Ohio 3722
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Brooks was indicted on complicity to aggravated robbery (Count One) and complicity to aggravated burglary (Count Two) and later pled no contest to Count Two; Count One was dismissed as part of the plea.
- On December 11, 2008, Brooks and the State orally agreed that Brooks would proffer truthful information about criminal activity in exchange for a recommended community-control sentence.
- A written proffer agreement entered the same day stated information provided could be used against Brooks if he was untruthful, and it did not address the change of plea or sentence recommendation in exchange for the proffer.
- Brooks met twice with ACE Task Force Director May to proffer information; May believed Brooks’s information was incomplete and not truthful overall.
- Brooks was sentenced on February 9, 2009 to five years in prison; the State had recommended six years, and no party objected to the sentence or the proffer terms at sentencing.
- Brooks later moved to withdraw his plea (April 2009) alleging the State breached the proffer agreement; a July 2009 hearing and a March 2010 post-conviction petition addressed the issue, with the trial court ultimately ruling that Brooks breached the proffer agreement and the State was not bound to a six-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary | Brooks argues the proffer agreement, being subjective, rendered the plea involuntary. | Brooks contends May’s subjective assessment controlled truthfulness and the State breached the agreement by not recommending community control. | No abuse of discretion; plea was voluntary and governed by contract terms. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006-Ohio-6679) (post-conviction review standards; deferential to trial court findings)
- State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (1994-Ohio-111) (procedural framework for post-conviction relief)
- Hutton v. Monograms Plus, Inc., 78 Ohio App.3d 176 (1992-Ohio-) (satisfaction clause; subjective standard with good-faith requirement)
- State v. Borts, 2010-Ohio-4149 (Ohio App. Dist.) (plea agreements with subjective satisfaction clauses and good-faith standard)