State v. Brown
2012 Ohio 199
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Brown pled guilty to unlawful sexual conduct with a minor under R.C. 2907.04(A) and was sentenced to five years in prison with post-release control.
- The court advised on potential penalties including five years of post-release control; a plea form stated three years of post-release control.
- The plea form contained a three-year post-release control designation, while the plea colloquy correctly stated five years.
- Brown filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea on February 17, 2011, asserting innocence and seeking a trial with new counsel.
- The trial court had not ruled on the motion when Brown appealed from the February 11, 2011 conviction, docketed as Case No. 24520.
- The court granted a limited remand for the trial court to rule on the motion to withdraw, after which the trial court denied the motion on May 25, 2011, leading to Case No. 24705 and consolidation for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary given the post-release control discrepancy. | Brown contends the three-year form error tainted voluntariness. | Brown asserts the mismatch between oral sentence (five years) and form (three years) undermines Crim.R. 11 compliance. | First assignment overruled; partial compliance with Crim.R. 11; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. | Brown argues withdrawal was warranted due to non-knowing plea. | State contends absence of manifest injustice; no plain error shown. | Second assignment overruled; no manifest injustice established. |
| Whether Brown received ineffective assistance of counsel. | Counsel failed to raise the plea-form discrepancy. | No prejudice from counsel's failure; complaint lacks showing of different outcome. | Third assignment overruled; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (1988) (upon plea, court must determine knowing and voluntary entry)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (requires waiver of constitutional rights to be made knowingly and intelligently)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (partial compliance rule for nonconstitutional rights; Crim.R. 11(C) variance guidance)
- Nero v. Strickland, 56 Ohio St.3d 203 (2004) (substantial-compliance standard for Crim.R. 11 nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008-Ohio-509) (complete failure to comply requires vacating plea; prejudice standard)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (prejudice analysis for partial compliance with Crim.R. 11)
- Griggs v. State, 2004-Ohio-4415 (2004) (documentation of voluntariness under Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (waiver of constitutional rights in guilty plea)