State v. Carner
2021 Ohio 2312
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Patrick Carner was indicted for tampering with evidence (third-degree felony) and obstructing official business (fifth-degree felony, with a furthermore clause for creating risk of physical harm) after his pregnant partner, B.A., exited his moving vehicle, struck the pavement, and later died from injuries.
- Carner pleaded guilty to both counts at a June 18, 2020 change-of-plea hearing conducted via Zoom; the court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and defense counsel stated Carner consented to appear by video.
- The state acknowledged it had considered reindicting Carner on more serious charges during plea negotiations but decided not to after he agreed to plead.
- At sentencing (Carner appeared by video from jail), the court considered the facts, victim impact, Carner’s extensive criminal history, and mitigation presented by defense counsel; the court imposed maximum consecutive terms of 36 months and 12 months (total 4 years) and made the statutory consecutive-sentence findings.
- Carner appealed raising multiple claims: defective Crim.R. 43 waiver/virtual appearance, involuntary plea due to prosecutorial threat, ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to mitigate, request merger, or use mental-health docket), improper consideration of victim/uncharged conduct, and that the sentence was contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Carner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Crim.R. 43 waiver / remote appearances | Carner consented to Zoom appearances; he participated and the court satisfied Crim.R.11; any technical shortfall was harmless | Waiver was not knowingly, intelligently, & voluntarily made; virtual sentencing denied a fair hearing | Waiver/remote appearances were valid or harmless; no plain error; assignments overruled |
| Plea voluntariness and prosecutorial threat to reindict | Plea was voluntary; prosecutor may mention reindictment as negotiation leverage | Plea coerced by threat of reindictment; prosecutorial vindictiveness/misconduct | Pleas were knowing and voluntary; prosecutorial mention of reindictment permissible under controlling precedent (Bordenkircher) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (mitigation, merger, mental-health docket) | Counsel presented mitigation, accepted strategy to plead and show remorse; merger not required because offenses were separate | Counsel stood idle, failed to file motions/sentencing memo, failed to seek merger, failed to pursue mental-health docket | No deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; strategy reasonable; Ruff analysis supports no merger |
| Use of victim impact / uncharged conduct at sentencing | Court limited sentencing to charged offenses and considered seriousness and offender history; victim impact relevant to seriousness | Court improperly considered victim impact and uncharged conduct (B.A.’s death) for sentencing | No reversible error; court did not sentence for uncharged homicide; victim-impact considered only insofar as related to charged offenses |
| Sentence legality / weighing of R.C. 2929.11/12 and consecutive findings | Court considered required factors and made and journalized Bonnell/R.C. 2929.14(C) findings; record supports consecutive maximum terms | Court failed to properly weigh statutory factors, refused to consider mitigating documentation, and imposed excessive consecutive maximums | Sentence affirmed; court complied with R.C. requirements and Bonnell; findings clearly and convincingly supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (prosecutor may legitimately use the possibility of more severe charges to induce a plea)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (plea bargaining is legitimate and pleas are presumptively valid when made voluntarily with counsel)
- Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (1973) (pressure from plea negotiation is an inevitable attribute of plea bargaining)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) (defendant’s presence required only to the extent absence thwarts a fair hearing)
- Ruff v. Ohio, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (2015) (R.C. 2941.25(B) allied-offense/merger framework: dissimilar import, separate conduct, or separate animus)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (requirements for journalizing trial court’s consecutive-sentence findings)
- Barnes v. Ohio, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain-error review and when errors affect substantial rights)