State v. Brown
2017 Ohio 2757
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jeffrey L. Brown pleaded guilty in April 2014 to drug trafficking (second-degree felony) and was sentenced to five years; a companion trafficking plea was sentenced concurrently.
- At the plea hearing the trial court advised Brown of rights and postrelease control but did not inform him of a statutorily mandated $7,500 fine applicable to the offense.
- After sentencing defense counsel sought to withdraw the plea upon learning of the unadvised fine; the state later said it would "waive" the fine and the court proceeded with the original sentence without imposing the fine.
- Brown appealed; this court previously affirmed the conviction but remanded only for the trial court to advise Brown of court costs.
- Brown later moved to withdraw his plea and for resentencing, arguing the sentence is void under State v. Moore because the mandatory fine was not imposed and no affidavit of indigency had been filed before sentencing.
- The trial court denied the motions; Brown appealed. This opinion affirms the conviction but reverses and remands for resentencing limited to imposition of the mandatory fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to impose a statutorily mandatory fine without a pre-sentencing affidavit of indigency renders that part of the sentence void | The sentence is valid because the state represented it would waive the fine and original sentence should stand | Brown argues failure to inform him of the $7,500 mandatory fine and absence of an indigency affidavit makes that portion of the sentence void under Moore | Court: Part of sentence is void; remand for resentencing limited to imposition of mandatory fine (Brown may file affidavit of indigency before resentencing) |
| Whether Brown received ineffective assistance of counsel for not being informed of the mandatory fine before pleading guilty | State contends Brown cannot show prejudice because he could file an affidavit of indigency to avoid the fine; record does not establish current indigency | Brown contends counsel failed to advise him of the fine, impairing the voluntariness of his plea | Court: Even if counsel erred, Brown failed to prove prejudice because indigency was not established; assignment overruled |
| Whether Brown's guilty plea was unknowing/ involuntary because court/state accepted a plea without advising of mandatory fine | State argues no manifest injustice because state said it would waive the fine and issues were previously litigated | Brown argues plea was not knowing/voluntary without disclosure of mandatory fine and that imposition of an unexpected fine would be a manifest injustice | Court: Issues not raised in current motion to withdraw plea, so they are not addressed; prior direct appeal addressed similar claim but court cautions that if Brown is not indigent he may move to withdraw plea later on manifest-injustice grounds |
| Whether plea agreement was a product of mutual mistake / void contract because of failure to disclose fine | State: waiver by state cured defect; no relief warranted now | Brown: Plea was based on mistaken understanding the fine would not apply or would be waived | Court: Not reached substantively here; suggests if Brown is not indigent, imposition of unexpected mandatory fine could support a Crim.R. 32.1 manifest-injustice withdrawal motion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moore, 135 Ohio St.3d 151, 985 N.E.2d 432 (Ohio 2012) (failure to impose mandatory statutory fine absent pre‑sentencing affidavit of indigency renders that part of the sentence void; resentencing limited to imposition of the fine)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 942 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio 2010) (sentence parts that are contrary to law are void and may be corrected at any time)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars re-litigation of claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Lentz, 70 Ohio St.3d 527, 639 N.E.2d 784 (Ohio 1994) (a defendant may challenge counsel’s effectiveness on collateral review where counsel represented defendant on direct appeal)