State v. Dehart
106 N.E.3d 1267
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- David Dehart was indicted on two counts (separate cases) for violating a protection order (each a fifth-degree felony) and pled guilty to both on January 31, 2017.
- At the plea hearing the court and parties agreed Dehart would receive community control (deferred until completion of a separate 12‑month probation revocation sentence). The court explained possible penalties and warned revocation could lead to prison.
- A PSI was ordered and sentencing was scheduled; Dehart moved to withdraw one plea before sentencing, arguing confusion about the agreed sentence.
- At sentencing the trial court rejected the plea agreement and imposed 12 months in prison on each count, ordered consecutive terms (total 24 months), contrary to the earlier promise of community control.
- On appeal the State conceded error, admitting Dehart’s pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the court failed to honor the sentencing agreement. The appellate court reversed and remanded for either enforcement of community control or permitting withdrawal of the pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dehart’s guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made where the court failed to impose the promised community control sentence | State conceded the plea was not voluntary because the court breached the sentencing agreement | Dehart argued the plea was involuntary because the court promised community control and then imposed prison terms | Court held plea was involuntary; reversed and remanded for imposition of agreed community control or to allow plea withdrawal |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Dehart’s pre‑sentence motion to withdraw his plea under Crim.R. 32.1 | Not argued after concession | Dehart argued withdrawal was warranted due to confusion and broken promise | Court found issue moot in light of reversal on first issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barker, 953 N.E.2d 826 (Ohio 2011) (Crim.R.11 requires defendant be informed and understand consequences of guilty plea)
- State v. Spates, 595 N.E.2d 351 (Ohio 1992) (review record to ensure Crim.R.11 compliance)
- State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (substantial compliance with Crim.R.11 nonconstitutional notifications; prejudice required to vacate plea for failure)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (breach of plea agreement entitles non‑breaching party to rescission or specific performance)
- State v. Adkins, 829 N.E.2d 729 (Ohio App. 2005) (treats plea agreements as contracts; remedy for breach governed by contract principles)
- State v. Gilroy, 959 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio App. 2011) (promised sentence is an inducement to plea; plea involuntary if promise not kept)