State v. Davis
2011 Ohio 2514
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Davis was indicted by a Cuyahoga County Grand Jury on one count of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer with a risk of serious physical harm specification, plus two counts of assault of a peace officer and one count of resisting arrest.
- Davis pleaded not guilty at arraignment; after pretrial proceedings, trial was scheduled for trial.
- On March 24, 2010, Davis withdrew not guilty pleas and pleaded guilty to the failure-to-comply count with the risk specification and to one count of assault of a peace officer; the state dismissed the remaining two charges.
- On April 19, 2010, the trial court sentenced Davis to two years for failure to comply and one year for assault, with consecutive terms totaling three years, and suspended his license for life.
- On April 22, 2010, Davis moved to withdraw his guilty pleas post-sentence; the trial court denied, and Davis appealed to challenge Crim.R. 11 disclosure about occupational driving privileges; the appellate court affirmed the denial.
- The court concluded there was no manifest injustice or prejudice from failure to inform about occupational driving privileges, and upheld the post-sentence denial of withdrawal of pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made given alleged Crim.R. 11 deficiencies | Davis argues lack of full Crim.R. 11 advice on occupational driving privileges | Davis contends missing information undermines voluntariness | No manifest injustice; plea knowingly made |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (Crim.R. 11(C) informed dialogue requirement for voluntary guilty plea)
- Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (strict compliance for constitutional rights; substantial compliance for nonconstitutional elements)
- Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 terms)
- Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (de novo review of Crim.R. 11 compliance; totality of circumstances)
- Caplinger, 105 Ohio App.3d 567 (1995) (lack of prejudice inquiry for nonconstitutional defects)
- Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard for post-sentence withdrawal)
- State v. Bell, 2007-Ohio-3276 (Cuyahoga App.) (post-sentence withdrawal requires manifest injustice)