State v. Corbett
2013 Ohio 4478
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Joseph Corbett, a previously convicted sex offender (rape, 1999), failed to notify the sheriff of a change of address after leaving a shelter and living in a tent on city property for about five months.
- He was indicted for failure to provide notice of change of address under R.C. 2950.05(F)(1); plea bargained to attempted failure to provide notice (fourth-degree felony).
- During post-plea proceedings the court conducted multiple sentencing hearings seeking a community-based facility; no facility accepted Corbett due to his history and psychological profile.
- The trial court sentenced Corbett to the maximum 18 months imprisonment and imposed five years of postrelease control.
- Corbett appealed, arguing (1) no factual basis for the plea (Alford issues), (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) error in imposing maximum prison sentence where community control was appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Corbett) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea lacked a factual basis / required Alford inquiry | Court may accept plea; facts admitted show failure to notify | Corbett argued later facts (hospitalization) showed inability to comply, implying innocence | Court: No Alford inquiry required; factual basis existed and protestations occurred after plea was entered — overruled Corbett’s claim |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising plea | Counsel’s advice was reasonable given admissions and plea benefits | Corbett said counsel should not have advised guilty plea because he acted recklessly or was prevented from complying | Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; plea reasonable under Strickland |
| Whether imposition of 18-month maximum prison term was improper | Court argued community options were unavailable; offender’s history justified prison | Corbett argued maximum sentence on a fourth/fifth-degree felony amenable to community control was improper | Court: Sentence lawful — court properly exercised discretion after finding no available community sanctions |
| Whether postrelease control term was proper | State urged five years based on sex-offender context | Corbett argued postrelease control period was excessive for this offense | Court: Five-year postrelease control erroneous for this conviction; remand for correction (period should be discretionary up to three years) |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (pleas accompanied by protestations of innocence require a factual basis to be valid)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Howard, 134 Ohio St.3d 467 (2012) (addresses retroactive application of Ohio’s sexual offender registration law)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (discusses appellate review standard for felony sentencing)