State v. Donegan
2017 Ohio 8520
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Hardin County indicted Thomas J. Donegan on rape (first-degree) and gross sexual imposition (third-degree) on Oct. 28, 2016. The rape count was later dismissed as part of a plea deal.
- Donegan initially pleaded not guilty, sought a competency evaluation, was found competent, and then at final pretrial changed his plea to guilty on the gross sexual imposition charge (Mar. 9, 2017).
- The trial court accepted the guilty plea after an extensive on-the-record colloquy and Donegan signed a written waiver of rights/plea form.
- The court ordered a PSI and sentenced Donegan to 30 months’ imprisonment (journalized Apr. 12, 2017).
- Donegan appealed, raising a single assignment of error: that his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary in violation of Crim.R. 11 and constitutional due process.
- The appeals court reviewed the plea colloquy and waiver form and affirmed, finding Crim.R. 11 requirements satisfied and the plea valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Donegan’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 | State: Trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2); the court personally advised Donegan of constitutional and nonconstitutional rights and he signed a waiver | Donegan: Plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (insufficient advisement) | Court affirmed — plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered; Crim.R. 11 satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 renders plea invalid; strict compliance required for constitutional rights)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (pleas must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under federal and state constitutions)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 advisements evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (defendant alleging plea invalidity must show prejudice — whether plea otherwise would have been made)