State v. Davis
2016 Ohio 7222
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Curtis Davis was charged in two Cuyahoga County cases with attempted murder, felonious assault, aggravated menacing, criminal trespass, having weapons while under disability, and related specifications. Midtrial he pled guilty to felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)) with a one-year firearm specification and to having weapons while under disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(2)); he also agreed to plead to escape in a separate case. The State agreed to dismiss remaining charges and recommended a three-year sentence if Davis testified truthfully against a codefendant.
- The trial court conducted a full Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy and accepted the pleas; sentencing was deferred pending the codefendant’s trial. The plea agreement expressly made the State’s three-year recommendation contingent on Davis’s truthful testimony and the court informed Davis it retained sentencing discretion.
- Davis declined to testify (asserting threats and violence against him and his family) and the State declined to honor the three-year recommendation. At sentencing the State sought 5–7 years; defense urged mitigating threats. The court imposed an aggregate 10-year prison term (6 years for felonious assault + 1-year firearm spec consecutive + 3 years for weapons-under-disability consecutive).
- Davis appealed only from the case CR-14-588497-B raising three assignments of error: (1) the Crim.R. 11 colloquy failed to warn him that a greater sentence could be imposed if he did not fulfill his promise to testify; (2) the court should have vacated his pleas sua sponte rather than proceed to sentencing after he failed to testify; and (3) trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to withdraw the pleas before sentencing.
- The appellate court affirmed: it found the Crim.R. 11 colloquy substantially complied with requirements, that no plain error required vacatur of the pleas, and that counsel was not ineffective under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim.R. 11 required warning that breach of the testimonial condition could lead to a greater sentence | The State argued the court properly informed defendant of charge ranges and that the court retained sentencing discretion | Davis argued the colloquy should have explicitly warned that failing to testify could produce a sentence greater than the agreed recommendation | Court: No error — substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11; court informed Davis of penalties and discretionary nature of sentencing recommendation |
| Whether the trial court should have vacated pleas sua sponte when Davis failed to testify | State: Court not required to rescind pleas where defendant willfully breached the agreement; court had not promised a specific sentence | Davis: Court should have vacated the plea rather than proceed to sentence after the conditional term was not met | Court: No plain error; vacatur not required because court did not bind itself to the agreed sentence and defendant voluntarily breached the bargain |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to withdraw pleas before sentencing | State: Counsel acted reasonably in preserving the favorable plea and advocating mitigating circumstances; motion would likely fail given defendant’s breach | Davis: Counsel should have sought withdrawal of the pleas when Davis indicated he would not testify | Court: No ineffective assistance — counsel’s performance was not deficient and defendant failed to show prejudice (would not have avoided plea) |
| Whether the court’s greater sentence violated the plea agreement | State: Sentence within court’s discretion; agreement conditioned on testimony which was not performed | Davis: Imposition of a higher sentence defeats the plea bargain protections | Court: No violation — the plea agreement did not bind the court and the State was relieved of its recommendation after defendant’s breach |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (distinguishes Crim.R. 11 constitutional and nonconstitutional advisements and requires strict vs. substantial compliance)
- State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91, 372 N.E.2d 804 (Ohio 1978) (plain-error standard; find plain error only in exceptional circumstances to prevent manifest miscarriage of justice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (Ohio 1989) (applies Strickland standard in Ohio)
- State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98, 477 N.E.2d 1128 (Ohio 1985) (licensed counsel presumed competent; defendant bears burden to prove ineffective assistance)