State v. Carter
2019 Ohio 2046
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On July 5, 2017 Marcus Carter was indicted for one count of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1),(D)).
- Carter initially pleaded not guilty but on December 12, 2017 withdrew that plea and entered a no-contest plea pursuant to a plea agreement in which the state agreed to recommend a 5-year cap on any prison sentence.
- During a Crim.R. 11 colloquy the court explained the full sentencing range (including that the court was not bound by the state’s 5-year recommendation); Carter acknowledged understanding the possible penalties and confirmed he wished to proceed.
- The state recited a factual basis: Carter punched the victim multiple times, threw glass mugs and a knife block (one object caused a forehead laceration requiring seven stitches), threatened her with knives, and the victim received medical treatment.
- The trial court accepted the no-contest plea, found Carter guilty, and sentenced him to five years in prison.
- Carter appealed, raising (1) insufficiency of the state’s factual recital to establish "serious physical harm," and (2) that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state’s factual statement satisfied the element of "serious physical harm" for felonious assault | State: The facts (multiple blows, objects thrown, forehead laceration requiring seven stitches, medical treatment) establish serious physical harm under R.C. 2901.01(A)(5) | Carter: Injuries did not rise to "serious physical harm" because there was no permanent incapacity, permanent disfigurement, or prolonged/intractable pain | Court: Held the facts are sufficient; stitches and medical treatment support temporary serious disfigurement and acute pain causing substantial suffering, satisfying the statute |
| Whether Carter’s no-contest plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily under Crim.R. 11 | State: Court fully advised Carter of charges, consequences, and sentencing range; Carter acknowledged understanding and chose to proceed | Carter: His statement "I already took the plea" shows he did not fully understand or waived further options; plea not voluntary | Court: Held plea met Crim.R. 11 requirements under totality of circumstances; Carter subjectively understood consequences and voluntarily proceeded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (trial court must ensure plea is knowing, voluntary, intelligent)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (substantial-compliance standard for nonconstitutional plea advisements)
- State v. Edwards, 83 Ohio App.3d 357 (cuts to head requiring stitches can constitute serious physical harm)