2018 Ohio 3509
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Phillip S. Clinton was indicted on multiple counts arising from two June 2017 incidents that injured two victims; charges included assaults, aggravated riot, and multiple felonious-assault counts.
- Clinton pleaded not guilty; on September 22, 2017 he pleaded guilty to two amended counts of aggravated assault (both fourth-degree felonies) and the state dismissed the remaining counts.
- At sentencing on November 1, 2017 the trial court imposed consecutive 17-month prison terms (34 months aggregate).
- Clinton appealed, assigning error that: (1) his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the court failed to advise him of certain constitutional rights; (2) the consecutive sentence was unsupported; and (3) costs were improperly imposed.
- The Sixth District considered whether the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) by orally advising Clinton of the constitutional right to have the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the court failed to orally inform defendant of the right to require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Clinton: plea invalid because court did not orally advise him of that constitutional right as required by Crim.R. 11(C) | State: any omission was cured by the written plea form and other parts of the record | Reversed: plea invalid because court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C); written plea could not cure complete failure to orally advise of that constitutional right |
| Whether an ambiguity in the oral colloquy could be cured by the written plea form | Clinton: not applicable; no oral advisement at all to be clarified | State: written plea form expressly stated waiver of right to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so ambiguity cured | Court rejected the cure because there was no oral advisement to clarify; Veney controls |
| Whether the consecutive sentence findings were unsupported | Clinton: raised as assignment but not reached after plea vacated | State: would have defended sentence | Moot (not addressed after vacating plea) |
| Whether court improperly imposed costs without finding ability to pay | Clinton: argued costs invalidly imposed | State: would defend imposition | Moot (not addressed after vacating plea) |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (same standard under Ohio law)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (nonconstitutional rights require substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C))
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (constitutional rights in Crim.R. 11(C) require strict compliance)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (trial court’s complete failure to orally advise of proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt right cannot be cured by other record sources)
- State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (2011) (ambiguities in oral colloquy may sometimes be clarified by the written plea form, but Veney remains controlling for complete omissions)