State v. Camp
2018 Ohio 2964
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Dustin Camp was indicted on sexual offenses and pled guilty to one count of rape (1st-degree felony) and one count of gross sexual imposition (GSI, 3rd-degree felony) in July 2017; other counts/specifications were dismissed under the plea deal.
- Sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 10 years for rape and 5 years for GSI, ordered consecutively (parole eligibility after 15 years).
- Before plea, court ordered and accepted a competency/sanity evaluation concluding Camp was competent to stand trial.
- During the plea hearing the court confirmed Camp signed and reviewed a written plea form and that he understood it, but the court did not orally recite post-release control (PRC) details; the written plea form expressly described mandatory five-year PRC and sanctions for violations.
- The written judgment entry recited that the court notified Camp PRC was mandatory for five years and ordered five years of PRC as part of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 by not orally advising Camp of mandatory post-release control | State: The court substantially complied via plea form, counsel, and colloquy about the form | Camp: Lack of oral advisement invalidated the plea under Crim.R.11(C)(2) | Court held there was substantial compliance; plea valid |
| Whether Camp showed prejudice warranting vacatur of plea | State: No prejudice shown; Camp did not assert he would have withdrawn plea | Camp: Argues he could not fully understand implications and would have decided differently | Court held Camp did not show he would have declined plea; no prejudicial effect shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R.11 plea- colloquy and necessity to inform defendant of consequences including PRC)
- State v. Sarkozy, 881 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 2008) (complete failure to inform defendant of mandatory PRC requires vacatur of plea)
- State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (prejudice test for partial noncompliance with Crim.R.11; whether plea would otherwise have been made)
- State v. Stewart, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (Ohio 1977) (foundation for harmless-error/prejudice analysis under Crim.R.11)