State v. Brunning
2013 Ohio 930
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- State appeals Brunning's convictions under the Adam Walsh Act provisions in the Eighth District.
- Brunning pleaded guilty to three counts in CR-532770, with a prior count vacated; one count later characterized as a third-degree felony via pre-AWA provisions.
- The trial court advised that all three counts would merge for sentencing, with a maximum potential penalty discussed as eight years.
- At sentencing, Brunning received a 21-year aggregate term, and he attempted to withdraw his plea based on prior representations.
- The Supreme Court remanded to address issues previously deemed moot and to reconsider the plea/merger issues in light of new precedent.
- This court sustained Brunning’s first assignment of error, vacated and remanded Counts 2 and 3 for further advisement and a possible renewal of the plea, while deeming the 21-year sentence moot for purposes of the immediate appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the guilty plea knowingly voluntary? | Brunning | State | Plea not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. |
| Was there proper sentencing merger for Counts 2 and 3? | Brunning | State | Merger issue sustained; need advisement under current law. |
| Are Counts 2 and 3 still subject to enforcement under the plea after legislative changes? | Brunning | State | Remanded for advisement and potential modification of plea; specific performance not automatic. |
| Is the 21-year sentence in CR-532770 moot on appeal? | Brunning | State | Moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (trial court must inform defendant of consequences to validly plead)