2016 Ohio 740
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Joseph Dorsey pleaded no contest to one count of fourth-degree grand theft of a motor vehicle, one count of fifth-degree attempt to commit receiving stolen property, and one count of fifth-degree receiving stolen property after being indicted on multiple theft-related charges stemming from possession/use of stolen vehicles and license plates while on postrelease control.
- The plea was part of a plea agreement in which the state dismissed remaining charges; a written plea form setting out maximum sentences was provided and reviewed with counsel.
- The trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, accepted the no-contest pleas, and deferred sentencing for a PSI.
- At sentencing the court imposed consecutive 11-month terms on each count (total 33 months) and found Dorsey violated postrelease control, imposing an additional consecutive 900-day term.
- Dorsey appealed, arguing his pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the trial court failed to personally inform him of the maximum penalty for each plea as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dorsey’s no-contest pleas were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the trial court did not personally inform him of the maximum penalties under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) | Dorsey: plea invalid because court failed to orally inform him of maximum sentences at plea hearing | State: court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 because Dorsey received and reviewed a written plea form that specified maximum penalties and confirmed understanding | Court affirmed: substantial compliance shown; Dorsey had actual notice and plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (Ohio 1977) (nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 notifications require substantial, not strict, compliance)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance means defendant subjectively understands implications and must show prejudice to overturn plea)
- State v. Calvillo, 76 Ohio App.3d 714 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (plea vacated where trial court misstated maximum penalty)