State v. Clark
2016 Ohio 5173
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Nicole Clark, former office manager at Gregg’s Specialty Services, was indicted for grand theft after a forensic audit found she diverted $96,386.85 in company funds via forged/unauthorized checks, bonuses, and ATM withdrawals.
- Indicted April 21, 2014; initially pleaded not guilty and agreed to take a polygraph via a written stipulation.
- Polygraph results were unfavorable to Clark; she later withdrew her not-guilty plea and entered a no contest plea to an amended fifth-degree theft felony.
- After a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the trial court accepted the no contest plea, found her guilty, and ordered a presentence investigation.
- At sentencing the court imposed restitution of $96,386.85, 90 days in jail, and five years of community control. Clark appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Clark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was accepted in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) | Court properly complied with Crim.R. 11 and informed defendant of constitutional rights | Plea was not voluntary/knowing because court failed to advise of compulsory process | Court found strict compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c); plea valid |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for allowing a polygraph | Submission to polygraph was a defendant-controlled/tactical decision; counsel’s conduct was reasonable | Counsel’s allowance of polygraph led Clark to plead no contest (ineffective assistance) | No ineffective assistance: decision to take polygraph was tactical and signed stipulation showed voluntary choice |
| Whether the sentence was contrary to law/abuse of discretion | Trial court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; imposed non-prison sanction consistent with findings | Sentence unclear because court did not specify factors considered | Under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2), record supported court’s consideration of statutory factors; sentence not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballard v. Ohio, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (Crim.R. 11 requires conveying information sufficient for voluntary, intelligent plea)
- Colbert v. Ohio, 71 Ohio App.3d 734 (App. Ct. 1991) (strict compliance required for constitutional rights under Crim.R. 11)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Bradley v. Ohio, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio 1989) (application of Strickland standard in Ohio)
- State v. Lascola, 61 Ohio App.3d 228 (App. Ct. 1988) (polygraph submission is a defendant-controlled risk)
- State v. Brimacombe, 195 Ohio App.3d 524 (App. Ct. 2011) (stating that merely noting consideration of R.C. 2929.12 is sufficient at sentencing)