State v. Campbell
2019 Ohio 1846
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant Deangelo D. Campbell was indicted on multiple drug- and vehicle-related counts; he negotiated a plea and pled guilty to two fifth-degree felonies (possession of cocaine and possessing criminal tools) with forfeiture specifications; other counts were nolled.
- Plea hearing occurred August 8, 2018; sentencing deferred for PSI. Written plea form explained constitutional rights and contained an explicit waiver.
- At the oral plea colloquy the trial court asked multiple questions about rights (jury trial, unanimity, confrontation/cross-examination, compulsory process, right to testify or remain silent, appeal, appointed counsel, transcript) but did not use the literal phrasing of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and some language was ambiguous.
- On September 26, 2018, the court imposed consecutive prison terms (11 months on each felony count, consecutive; plus 12 months for a parole violation, for a total of 34 months).
- Appellant appealed claiming the trial court failed to ensure he understood that by pleading guilty he was waiving the specific constitutional rights set out in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c).
- The appellate court affirmed the plea as knowing, intelligent, and voluntary but remanded for a nunc pro tunc sentencing entry to include an omitted statutory finding about appellant’s criminal history supporting consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Campbell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) by advising defendant he was waiving the rights listed there | Court strictly complied; colloquy and written plea collectively satisfied Rule 11 | Court failed to inform/ensure defendant understood he was waiving the right to require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to determine he understood waiver of rights | Court found oral colloquy ambiguous but, because each right was addressed and the written plea unambiguously explained waivers, plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary (no reversal) |
| Whether sentencing entry omitted required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings and needs correction | N/A (court noticed error sua sponte) | N/A | Court ordered remand for nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate the trial court’s on-record R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)(c) finding about defendant’s criminal history supporting consecutive sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (constitutional rights must be waived knowingly and voluntarily)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (standard for reviewing Crim.R. 11 compliance)
- State v. Caudill, 48 Ohio St.2d 342 (1976) (Crim.R. 11 provisions must be scrupulously and literally followed)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (plea advisements must be reasonably intelligible to the defendant)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (strict compliance required for Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c); oral advisement preferred)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (silent record cannot supply waiver of rights)
- State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (2011) (ambiguities in oral colloquy may be clarified by the written plea when all rights were addressed)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings required for consecutive sentences; omissions in the entry can be corrected nunc pro tunc if made on the record)