midpage
2012 Ohio 354
Ohio Ct. App.
2012
Read the full case

Background

  • Defendant Robert Dissell pled guilty to two counts of robbery, one theft, and one drug possession; sentenced to five years.
  • Bank robbery occurred December 7, 2010; no weapon used, no physical harm, money recovered; police found heroin and $364 on Dissell.
  • Dissell was indicted on two felonies of robbery, one fifth-degree theft, and one fifth-degree drug possession, with a forfeiture specification.
  • Plea entered February 24, 2011 after initially pleading not guilty.
  • Appellate argument focused on Crim.R. 11 validity and sentencing discretion; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Were the guilty pleas made knowingly and voluntarily under Crim.R. 11(C)? Dissell contends plea colloquy misled about penalties. Dissell argues improper guidance about potential sentence rendered pleas involuntary. Pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sentencing, violating R.C. 2929.11/2929.12? State argues sentence aligns with statutory factors and protects the public. Dissell contends factors favor lesser punishment given lack of weapon, no harm, first offense. Five-year sentence not an abuse of discretion.

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. Schmick, 8th Dist. No. 95210 (2011-Ohio-2263) (Crim.R. 11(C) compliance framework (knowingly/voluntarily))
  • State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (Strict vs. substantial compliance depending on right involved)
  • State v. Asberry, 173 Ohio App.3d 443 (2007-Ohio-5436) (Asberry-like mismatch can void pleas if informed of likelihood of incarceration misrepresented)
  • State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (Two-step review of felony sentences; not clearly contrary to law first; then abuse of discretion)
  • State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (Eliminated mandatory judicial fact-finding for upward departures; sentencing review framework)
  • State v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (Established abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing)
  • State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) ((duplicate entry to reflect two-step framework))
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Dissell
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Feb 2, 2012
Citations: 2012 Ohio 354; 96634
Docket Number: 96634
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.
Log In