State v. Bush
2016 Ohio 551
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Bush was indicted in Clermont County on three counts of aggravated vehicular assault, three counts of vehicular assault, and two counts of OVI arising from a 2014 DUI crash sequence that left the victims injured and with long-term impairment; blood alcohol content measured at .242 after the crash; the incidents involved a chain-reaction collision starting with Schott’s vehicle; he pled not guilty and later pled guilty to two counts of aggravated vehicular assault and one count of OVI.
- Two psychiatric evaluations found Bush competent to stand trial; the court denied motions for change of venue and various pro se motions, including another venue request.
- Prior to pleading, Bush underwent Crim.R. 11 competency and plea-acceptance proceedings where he stipulated competence and entered a guilty plea to two aggravated vehicular assault counts and one OVI.
- Bush argued the guilty plea was involuntary due to his alleged inability to handle legal affairs, pretrial publicity, perceived trial judge bias, and strained relationship with counsel.
- The trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, ensured understanding of charges and penalties, and ultimately accepted the guilty plea, sentencing Bush to a seven-year aggregate term, all mandatory.
- On appeal, Bush challenges the validity of his plea as not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered; the appellate court ultimately rejects this challenge and affirms the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. | State contends Bush understood the proceedings and plea rights; Crim.R. 11 compliance established. | Bush contends involuntariness due to competency concerns, publicity, bias, and counsel issues. | Plea found knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made; Crim.R. 11 governs guilty pleas)
- Nebraska Press Ass'n. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (pretrial publicity alone does not mandate reversal; voir dire is key)
- State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff, 132 Ohio St.3d 481 (2012-Ohio-3328) (pretrial publicity effects may dissipate; careful voir dire tests fairness)
- State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (1990) (extensive publicity does not automatically render trial unfair)
- State v. Burns, 2005-Ohio-5290 (2005-Ohio-5290) (incompetence vs. trial competence distinctions; not dispositive of standing trial competencies)
- State v. Cumberland, 2005-Ohio-1229 (2005-Ohio-1229) (bias claims must be raised through proper channels; inappropriate to argue on direct appeal)