State v. Brown
2021 Ohio 2327
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Stephone M. Brown was indicted for one count of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer (third‑degree felony) in Montgomery County, Ohio.
- Brown filed a motion to suppress identification testimony; the hearing was scheduled but never held.
- Brown had a separate pending federal case and detainer; he entered a guilty plea in state court remotely on October 21, 2020.
- At the plea hearing the court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, advised Brown of rights, and discussed the effect of the pending federal case; Brown expressed confusion about concurrency/credit but proceeded.
- The parties agreed to a 12‑month prison sentence and a mandatory three‑year driver’s‑license suspension; judgment was entered accordingly.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non‑frivolous issues but suggesting two potential assignments of error: plea voluntariness and sentencing prior to federal disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plea validity | Plea complied with Crim.R.11; was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary | Plea was not voluntary/knowing because of confusion about federal concurrency and credit for time served | Court: Colloquy satisfied Crim.R.11; plea valid; claim frivolous |
| Sentence / concurrency | Agreed 12‑month sentence was authorized by law and not appealable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) | Sentencing before federal disposition (and unresolved concurrency) prejudiced Brown | Court: Agreed sentence bars appellate review; license suspension statutory; no meritorious sentencing claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedure when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (appellate court’s independent review duty after Anders brief)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (guilty plea must be knowing and voluntary)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Crim.R.11 safeguards due‑process plea requirements)
- State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 (strict compliance required for constitutional advisements)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (constitutional advisements under Crim.R.11)
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (distinguishes constitutional and nonconstitutional advisements; prejudice standard)
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (agreed sentence imposed jointly by parties is not appealable)