State v. Danon
105 N.E.3d 596
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Benjamin R. Danon was indicted on one count of aggravated robbery (first-degree felony) for an incident on November 13, 2016 in which he was alleged to have been the ringleader and brandished a handgun; Danon denied having a weapon and said he punched someone.
- Danon was arraigned and represented by retained counsel; multiple continuances were requested and granted earlier in the case (arraignment, pretrial), while a later motion to continue trial was denied.
- Danon entered a no-contest plea on May 17, 2017 with no plea agreement; the court accepted the plea, ordered a PSI, and scheduled sentencing (date later moved up from July 5 to June 22).
- Defense counsel sought a psychological/forensic evaluation by Dr. Mary Melton and requested a continuance of sentencing because the evaluation could not initially be completed at the jail; the court learned the jail arranged access and denied the continuance.
- The defense filed a detailed sentencing memorandum (including Dr. Melton’s report and medical records) the day before sentencing; at the June 22 hearing the court took a recess of about an hour to review the memorandum before imposing sentence.
- The court sentenced Danon to six years in prison and costs; Danon appealed, raising (1) that his no-contest plea was not knowing/voluntary and (2) that the court abused its discretion by denying the continuance of sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Danon’s no-contest plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered | The State: plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11 and Danon affirmed voluntariness | Danon: felt pressured/uncertain and thus plea was not voluntary | Court: plea was voluntary; trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 and record shows Danon knowingly proceeded |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance of the sentencing hearing | The State: continuance request was unnecessary because the jail arranged access for the evaluator and the defense had adequate time; court reasonably recessed to review materials | Danon: needed more time to prepare and complete evaluation; sentencing was rushed to transfer him before surgery | Court: no abuse of discretion; basis for continuance was resolved, Dr. Melton’s report was in the record, and the court recessed to review materials before sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 2008) (trial courts urged to literally comply with Crim.R. 11; strict compliance required for waiver of constitutional rights)
- State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (nonconstitutional aspects of Crim.R. 11 require substantial compliance; standard explained)
- State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (defendant challenging plea on nonconstitutional grounds must show prejudice i.e., plea would not otherwise have been entered)