State v. Chance
2012 Ohio 1266
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant-appellant Debra Chance was charged with aggravated theft in Mahoning County, Ohio.
- Indictment alleged Chance stole between $500,000 and $1,000,000 from The Honda Store.
- Chance pleaded guilty to aggravated theft as part of a Crim.R. 11 plea; charge later amended from second-degree to third-degree felony.
- Plea agreement included a recommended four-year sentence and restitution of $10,000, with potential for more restitution if later made.
- Trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Chance to four years’ imprisonment with full restitution.
- Appellate counsel filed a combined no-merit brief under Toney; Chance did not file a pro se brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the guilty plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary? | Chance’s plea complied with Crim.R. 11 and conveyed necessary waivers. | Any nonconstitutional advisements were not properly explained, potentially affecting voluntariness. | Crim.R. 11 substantially complied; plea voluntary. |
| Did the trial court substantially comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) nonconstitutional advisements and prejudice shown? | Court informed Chance of penalties, post-release control, and eligibility for probation; substantial compliance shown. | Possible defect in advising immediate judgment after plea process could undermine the plea. | Substantial compliance found; no prejudice shown. |
| Is Chance’s sentence clearly and convincingly contrary to law or an abuse of discretion? | Four-year term within statutory range; court considered 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors. | Not argued; maybe less justification for severe term given amount stolen. | Sentence not contrary to law; no abuse of discretion; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (strict compliance required for constitutional advisements; nonconstitutional must be substantial)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 2008) (nonconstitutional advisements and Crim.R. 11 requirements)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (Ohio 2008) (framework for reviewing sentencing under Kalish two-stage approach)
- State v. Trubee, 2005-Ohio-552 (Ohio App.3d 2005) (plea voluntariness and related waiver considerations)