State v. Clifton
2018 Ohio 269
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Leconte Clifton pled guilty in Sept. 2007 to aggravated murder (R.C. 2903.01(B)) with a 3-year firearm specification pursuant to a plea deal that removed a death-penalty exposure; agreed sentence: 30 years to life consecutive to 3 years for a total of 33 years to life.
- Trial court, during the plea colloquy and in the sentencing entry, incorrectly told Clifton he would be subject to 5 years of mandatory postrelease control if released.
- The court did advise that aggravated murder carried a possible maximum of life without parole and accepted the agreed 33-years-to-life sentence.
- Clifton filed a delayed appeal (granted Dec. 2016) challenging (1) voluntariness of plea based on incorrect advisals about postrelease control and fines, (2) sentence as contrary to law because postrelease control was imposed, and (3) imposition of court costs and counsel’s effectiveness re: affidavit of indigency.
- Court of Appeals (8th Dist.) affirmed in part, vacated only the postrelease-control portion of the sentence as contrary to law, and remanded for a corrected judgment entry; rejected other challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clifton's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent given incorrect advisal of 5 years postrelease control and omission of $25,000 fine | State: Plea colloquy substantially complied with Crim.R. 11; incorrect postrelease-control statements did not change maximum penalty and no prejudice shown | Clifton: Misadvisal about postrelease control and omission of fine rendered plea invalid | Court: Partial noncompliance on postrelease control (nonconstitutional); no prejudice shown — plea stands. Failure to mention fine not prejudicial because no fine imposed. |
| Whether imposition of 5 years postrelease control is lawful for aggravated murder | State: Sentence as imposed in entry stood | Clifton: Aggravated murder is not subject to postrelease control; the term is contrary to law | Court: Vacated the postrelease-control term — aggravated murder not subject to postrelease control. |
| Whether trial court’s failure to orally advise Clifton of appellate rights required relief | Clifton: Trial court failed to advise appellate rights | State: No prejudice; delayed appeal granted | Court: No prejudice shown; issue overruled. |
| Whether court costs were improperly imposed without oral notice and without consideration of indigency; counsel ineffective for not filing affidavit timely | Clifton: Costs imposed without oral notice; counsel ineffective for not filing affidavit; inability to pay not considered | State: Statute requires costs be included; court may waive but not required; counsel later filed affidavit and motion denied | Court: Trial court erred in not orally notifying re: costs (Joseph), but counsel moved to waive at sentencing and court had notice of indigency; no reasonable probability waiver would be granted — costs remain; ineffective-assistance claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (explains distinction between parole and postrelease control; hybrid advisals can vitiate Crim.R. 11 compliance)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (strict compliance required for constitutional components of Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (defines "substantial compliance" with Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (prejudice requirement for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 errors)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 requires vacatur without prejudice showing)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (defendant must be orally informed at sentencing if court costs will be imposed)
- State v. Threatt, 108 Ohio St.3d 277 (motion to waive costs must be made at sentencing to preserve review)