State v. Deniro
2017 Ohio 1025
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rockne Deniro, a lifetime-registered sex offender, was indicted in 2016 for failing to notify authorities of a change of address in violation of R.C. 2950.05 (third-degree felony).
- At arraignment he stood mute and the court entered a not-guilty plea; after pretrials he entered into a plea agreement with the State.
- The parties jointly recommended a two-year sentence and asked the court not to impose any sentence for an alleged post-release control violation.
- At the plea hearing the court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, accepted Deniro’s oral “Guilty” plea, and later engaged him in a discussion (after acceptance of the plea) about a letter he had submitted explaining circumstances of the offense.
- The court sentenced Deniro to the agreed two-year term and declined to impose any sentence for post-release control; Deniro appealed asserting his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary and that the court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Deniro) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deniro’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered | Plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11; Deniro admitted understanding rights and consequences | Deniro claims he believed he could still litigate guilt, professed innocence, and didn’t understand consequences | Court held plea valid: Crim.R. 11 colloquy satisfied, Deniro knowingly pleaded guilty and did not assert innocence on record or seek to withdraw plea |
| Whether the court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 by not informing Deniro about timing of sentencing or PSI | No plain requirement to announce PSI decision; substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) suffices for nonconstitutional advisements | Court failed to inform when sentencing would occur and didn’t tell whether PSI would be ordered; this deprived him of Rule 11 rights | Court held no reversible error: no Crim.R. 11 requirement to disclose PSI decision; timing admonition is nonconstitutional and Deniro suffered no prejudice; plea and sentencing upheld |
| Whether an Alford plea situation required special handling | N/A — State notes Deniro never entered an Alford plea or asserted innocence during colloquy | Deniro cites Alford and claims he consistently proclaimed innocence and thus required factual basis for plea | Court found no Alford plea; Deniro never stated innocence on the record and did not ask to withdraw plea; Alford does not apply |
| Whether failure to discuss R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors during colloquy invalidates plea | Sentencing factors are not part of Crim.R. 11 colloquy; joint recommendation limits collateral attack | Deniro argues court should have discussed statutory sentencing principles and seriousness/recidivism factors | Court declined to reach sentencing-factor challenge here; Crim.R. 11 does not require those advisements and jointly-recommended sentence is generally not challengeable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (Crim.R. 11: strict compliance required for constitutional advisements; substantial compliance for nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance defined by defendant’s subjective understanding; test whether plea would otherwise have been made)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (Alford plea permits guilty plea while professing innocence only when strong factual basis for guilt exists)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (failure to comply with nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 requirements invalidates plea only if defendant was prejudiced)