State v. Contento
2018 Ohio 111
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2016 a Miami County grand jury indicted Thomas A. Contento on eight counts of first-degree rape of victims under 13 arising from conduct between 1995–2005 involving three victims.
- Pursuant to a plea agreement Contento pled guilty to two rape counts (one involving K.C., one involving S.C.); six remaining counts and the separate case involving H.K. were dismissed.
- The State and Contento jointly recommended consecutive mandatory nine-year terms on each count for an aggregate 18-year prison term; the parties also agreed the State would not file further sexual-abuse charges related to these victims.
- At the plea hearing the trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, advised Contento of mandatory prison terms and Megan’s Law registration requirements; plea forms correctly noted mandatory prison but incorrectly stated eligibility for community control.
- The trial court accepted the joint recommendation, imposed the agreed consecutive 9+9-year sentences with 188 days jail credit on one count, and imposed five years post-release control and sex-offender registration for 10 years.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no arguable issues; the court performed an independent review and affirmed the convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Contento’s guilty pleas were knowing, intelligent, voluntary | State: plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11; court advised mandatory prison and ineligibility for community control | Contento: plea forms incorrectly said community control was available, undermining voluntariness | Court: At least partial compliance; on-the-record admissions show Contento understood mandatory prison and ineligibility for community control -> plea valid; no arguable merit |
| Whether the jointly-recommended consecutive 18-year sentence is reviewable | State: sentence was jointly recommended and authorized by law, so not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) | Contento: challenges the aggregate 18-year sentence as erroneous | Court: Jointly-recommended sentence comports with mandatory provisions and is not subject to appellate review -> no arguable merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s obligations when concluding appeal is frivolous)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (guilty plea must be knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (distinguishes strict vs. substantial compliance under Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (discusses substantial compliance and prejudice test for Crim.R. 11 advisements)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (complete failure to advise of mandatory postrelease control requires vacatur)
- State v. Sergent, 148 Ohio St.3d 94 (jointly-recommended sentence not subject to appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1))
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (sentence is review-barred only if it comports with mandatory sentencing provisions)
- State v. Silvers, 181 Ohio App.3d 26 (conflicting plea colloquy and plea form advisements can invalidate plea)