2017 Ohio 8735
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On August 20, 2016, Darwin Canales broke into his ex-girlfriend’s home, held a knife to her throat, threatened her, and fled in her car; police later arrested him.
- A Cuyahoga County grand jury indicted Canales on eight counts including aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, robbery, grand theft, assault, and aggravated menacing; several counts carried repeat-violent-offender specifications.
- Canales pleaded guilty on December 6, 2016 to Counts 5–8 (robbery, grand theft, assault, aggravated menacing); the court accepted the plea after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent prison terms totaling five years and ordered restitution of $1,993 for car damage and $553 for damage to the victim’s door.
- Canales filed a delayed appeal challenging (1) the voluntariness/validity of his guilty plea and (2) the restitution amount as unsupported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered under Crim.R. 11 | State: Trial court conducted required plea colloquy and informed Canales of rights and maximum penalties | Canales: Court’s advisements were out of order (constitutional rights advised before some penalty advisements) and thus failed to substantially comply with Crim.R. 11 | Court: Crim.R. 11 requirements satisfied; colloquy substantially complied and plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether restitution amount was supported by the record | State: Restitution may be based on estimates or receipts and the court relied on receipts/estimates presented | Canales: Restitution for home damage ($553) exceeded the receipt amount by $28 and lacked record support | Court: Plain error found as to home-damage amount; modified restitution to $525 (matching receipt) and remanded for corrected journal entry |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (Ohio 1981) (Crim.R. 11’s purpose is to ensure pleas are voluntary and intelligent)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 660 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1996) (trial court must engage defendant in colloquy under Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (Ohio 1977) (substantial-compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 advisements)
- State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107, 559 N.E.2d 710 (Ohio 1990) (plain-error standard applied sparingly to prevent miscarriage of justice)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio 1978) (framework for plain-error review)
- State v. Marbury, 104 Ohio App.3d 179, 661 N.E.2d 271 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (failure to object to restitution waives all but plain error review)