State v. Delp
2017 Ohio 8879
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2017Background
- Michael Delp appealed convictions and sentences in two Cuyahoga County cases: CR-15-599103-B (burglary and misdemeanor assault after plea) and CR-15-595152-B (two fifth-degree drug possession guilty pleas).
- In CR-15-599103-B Delp pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement: Count 1 reduced to third-degree burglary, Count 2 to a first-degree misdemeanor assault; Count 3 was nolled. PSI ordered and sentencing set.
- At sentencing Delp received 3 years on the burglary count and 6 months on the misdemeanor assault, to run concurrently with each other and concurrently with the sentence in CR-15-595152-B.
- In CR-15-595152-B the trial court imposed a single 9-month prison term while Delp had pled guilty to two possession counts. The appellate court found that sentencing entry improper because it did not impose sentence separately on each count.
- On appeal Delp raised: (1) that his guilty plea in CR-15-599103-B was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (claiming counsel misadvice, trial-court misstatements, and interruptions), and (2) that the trial court erred by imposing a maximum sentence for burglary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent | Trial court failed to comply with Crim.R.11 and made misstatements; counsel gave incorrect advice; interruptions prevented full explanation | Delp argued plea was involuntary due to counsel misstatement and court errors | Plea upheld: court substantially complied with Crim.R.11; isolated misstatements did not prejudice Delp; no timely withdrawal before sentencing |
| Whether trial court erred by imposing maximum sentence for burglary | Maximum sentence was contrary to law because court relied on incorrect facts (juvenile burglary charge/adjudications) and failed to state consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | Court considered PSI, criminal history (including juvenile adjudications as permissible), victim injury, lack of remorse; sentencing within statutory range and court noted it considered required factors | Sentence affirmed: within statutory range; court considered R.C.2929.11 and 2929.12 factors; juvenile adjudications may be considered for recidivism risk |
| Whether sentencing entry in CR-15-595152-B was appealable/final | N/A (appellant included both cases in notice) | Trial court imposed a single sentence for multiple convictions | Remanded CR-15-595152-B for de novo resentencing on each count because single blanket sentence is not a final appealable order |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (guilty pleas must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and Crim.R. 11 compliance required)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (trial court must ensure waiver of constitutional trial rights is knowing and voluntary)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (failure to inform defendant of any right in Crim.R.11(C)(2)(c) invalidates plea)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance with Crim.R.11 suffices for nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review for felony sentences under R.C.2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2016) (juvenile adjudications are not convictions; due process bars treating them as adult convictions for enhancement)