State v. Cupp
2017 Ohio 7948
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Adam R. Cupp was indicted on multiple sex-related felonies involving a minor; he ultimately pleaded guilty (June 17, 2016) to two amended counts: Attempted Abduction (4th degree) and Endangering Children (3rd degree). Remaining counts were to be nolled at sentencing.
- A written plea agreement included a handwritten, initialed provision that "the parties agree to recommend that the defendant be on community control sanctions; if however, he violates he will get maximum time" (with an interlineation of "to recommend").
- Cupp was already incarcerated on unrelated municipal-court probation-violation sentences; his bond in the common-pleas case had been set at $400,000 and was later revoked.
- Cupp moved (pre-sentence) to withdraw his guilty plea after the court declined to reduce bond; the court held a hearing and denied the motion.
- At sentencing the court merged the two amended counts, imposed the maximum 36-month prison term, awarded 58 days of jail-credit (from the day after the municipal sentence ended), and declined community control.
- On appeal the court affirmed as to the plea/agreement and withdrawal rulings but reversed the jail-time credit calculation, holding the trial court erred under R.C. 2967.191 and remanded to correct credit.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Cupp's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether written plea differed materially from what Cupp agreed to (interlineation/initials) | Written plea and the court colloquy reflected that the agreement was to recommend community control; no record evidence of a different deal | Cupp claimed he signed before "to recommend" was added and thus the agreement was different | Rejected — no evidence in record to support Cupp's claim; appellate review confined to trial record |
| Whether the State breached plea by arguing facts supporting prison instead of recommending community control | Prosecutor maintained it still agreed to recommend community control; its merger argument merely discussed elements and did not constitute breach | Cupp argued prosecutor effectively supported imprisonment at sentencing, breaching the recommendation promise | Rejected — no record proof of a breach and no showing sentence would have differed absent any alleged breach |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying pre-sentence motion to withdraw plea | Court and State argued plea was voluntary, Crim.R.11 colloquy occurred, full hearing on motion; expectation of bond change was unwarranted | Cupp argued he should be allowed to withdraw because the court tipped its hand by not reducing bond and thus wouldn’t follow agreement | Rejected — court applied correct standards (Peterseim factors), held a full hearing and gave fair consideration; no reasonable basis to permit withdrawal |
| Whether trial court miscalculated jail-time credit under R.C. 2967.191 | Trial court awarded credit only from the day after municipal sentence ended (July 30, 2016) through sentencing | Cupp argued credit should run from August 7, 2015 (date bond was set/raised and he remained detained) through sentencing because incarceration related to the instant offense | Accepted in part — appellate court held the trial court’s credit calculation was contrary to law and remanded to reflect credit from August 7, 2015 through sentencing (plus pre-municipal three days) |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (plea agreements are contractual; prosecutor's obligations enforceable after court accepts plea)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (pre-sentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas are to be allowed freely and liberally; standards for review)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (Eighth Dist. 1980) (four-factor test for reviewing trial court denial of pre-sentence plea-withdrawal motions)
- State v. Fugate, 117 Ohio St.3d 261 (Ohio 2008) (when concurrent sentences are imposed, jail-time credit under R.C. 2967.191 must be applied toward each concurrent term)