State v. Durkin
2014 Ohio 2247
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Durkin was charged in four separate theft cases under R.C. 2913.02(A)(1) with four victims (Gaffney, Carn, Hill, Brown).
- Amounts allegedly stolen: $900 from Gaffney, $480 from Carn, $750 from Hill, and $4,000 from Brown.
- Durkin entered no contest pleas on March 3, 2012; convictions and sentences followed in those cases.
- Sentences: two cases imposed 5 years intensive probation; two cases imposed 180-day jail terms with restitution, served consecutively.
- Durkin moved to withdraw his pleas in two cases on March 12, 2013; motions were denied March 13, 2013.
- Durkin filed a timely appeal from the March 3, 2012 judgments; this court granted a delayed appeal.
- Appellate counsel filed a no-merit brief; Durkin raised ineffective assistance and maximum sentence as issues; independent review conducted.
- The court found no meritorious issues and affirmed the convictions and sentences; appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plea advisement adequacy under Crim.R. 11 | State argues partial compliance; no prejudice shown | Durkin argues advisement violated Crim.R. 11 and was prejudicial | No reversible error; no prejudice shown |
| Whether the sentencing was within the trial court's discretion | Court properly weighed factors and imposed appropriate sentences | Durkin claims sentence excessive or an abuse of discretion | Maximum sentences not an abuse of discretion; sentences affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel's performance not deficient; no prejudice | Counsel ineffective; misled about plea strategy; prejudice | No ineffective assistance; record shows competent representation and no prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dosch, 2009-Ohio-6534 (7th Dist. No. 08MA63, 2009) (three-point disclosure requirement for Crim.R. 11(B)(2) and (2) adequacy)
- State v. Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4415 (Ohio St.3d, 2004) (substantial compliance standard for plea advisements)
- State v. Nero, 1990-Ohio-108 (Ohio St.3d, 1990) (requirements of handling nonconstitutional rights in pleas)
- State v. Lazazzera, 2013-Ohio-2547 (7th Dist. No. 12MA170, 2013) (deficiency in advisement and potential prejudice analysis)
- State v. Sarkozy, 2008-Ohio-509 (Ohio Sup. Ct., 2008) (complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 requires vacating plea)
- State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748 (Ohio Sup. Ct., 2008) (partial compliance vs. complete failure analysis for plea advisements)
- State v. Toney, 23 Ohio App.2d 203 (7th Dist. 1970) (procedure for no-merit Anders/Toney briefs in indigent appeals)