State v. Duhart
2017 Ohio 7983
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 1, 2016, multiple storage units in Toledo were broken into; DNA linked Jason Duhart to the crimes. He was indicted on vandalism, two counts of grand theft of a motor vehicle, and 14 counts of breaking and entering.
- On October 19, 2016, Duhart pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to five counts (vandalism; grand theft; and three breaking-and-entering counts); the remaining counts were dismissed.
- The trial court accepted the pleas, ordered a PSI, and at sentencing imposed consecutive terms (17 months on two counts, 10 months on three counts) for an aggregate 64-month prison term; restitution and various costs were also ordered.
- Duhart appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) his pleas were not knowing/voluntary under Crim.R. 11; (2) three breaking-and-entering convictions should have merged as allied offenses; and (3) the court erred in imposing costs without adequately considering his ability to pay.
- The Sixth District Court of Appeals reviewed the plea colloquy, the PSI, and the sentencing transcript and affirmed the trial court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pleas were knowing and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 | State: Trial court conducted a full plea colloquy, defendant signed plea form, and court complied with Crim.R. 11 | Duhart: Court failed to recite elements and explain facts for each offense, so plea was not knowing/voluntary | Court: No reversible error — strict compliance with constitutional warnings and substantial compliance for nonconstitutional matters; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether three breaking-and-entering convictions were allied offenses requiring merger | State: Offenses involved separate victims, so dissimilar import; convictions may stand | Duhart: Record lacks factual basis to show offenses were separate, so convictions may be allied | Court: No plain error — record (PSI and prosecutor statements) shows separate victims; offenses dissimilar in import and need not merge |
| Whether trial court erred in imposing prosecution, supervision, and confinement costs without determining ability to pay | State: R.C. 2947.23 requires assessment of prosecution costs against convicted defendants; sentencing record (counsel statements and PSI) supported court’s consideration of ability to pay for confinement/supervision costs | Duhart: Record lacks inquiry into employment, education, and present/future ability to pay | Court: Costs of prosecution properly imposed as mandatory; court sufficiently considered ability to pay for confinement/supervision based on PSI and counsel’s statements; imposition not contrary to law |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballard v. Ohio, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (Crim.R. 11 purpose: ensure voluntary and intelligent guilty plea)
- Nero v. State, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 warnings)
- Fitzpatrick v. Ohio, 102 Ohio St.3d 321 (Ohio 2004) (trial courts need not give detailed element-by-element recitation before accepting plea)
- Ruff v. Ohio, 143 Ohio St.3d 114 (Ohio 2015) (offenses are dissimilar when they involve separate victims or separate, identifiable harm)
- Rogers v. Ohio, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (failure to raise allied-offense claim at trial forfeits all but plain error review)