State v. Durrette
2017 Ohio 7314
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Brandon Durrette pleaded guilty in two Cuyahoga County cases for a series of armed robberies and related offenses; pleas included dismissal of various counts and deletion of prior-conviction specifications and multiple firearm specifications as part of plea deals.
- He was sentenced on December 17, 2015 to an aggregate 25-year term in one case and a concurrent 5-year term in the other.
- Durrette appealed, and this court remanded so he could file a postsentence motion to vacate/withdraw his pleas after the Ohio Supreme Court decided State v. Hand.
- On remand he moved to vacate/withdraw his pleas arguing the pleas were induced by deletion of prior-conviction specifications which Hand later held unconstitutional when based on juvenile adjudications.
- The trial court denied the postsentence motion; the appellate majority affirmed, rejecting claims that the pleas were unknowing, involuntary, or that counsel was ineffective, and holding the sentence was not contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Durrette) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of plea given deletion of prior-conviction specs under Hand | Plea was valid because at time of plea (Dec 2015) the prior-conviction specs were lawful; deletion of specs and dismissal of many counts constituted real benefits. | Plea was induced by deletion of prior-conviction specs which Hand later held unconstitutional, so he bargained for nothing and plea was not knowing/voluntary. | Affirmed — plea was knowing/voluntary: Hand decided after plea; specs were valid at plea; plea yielded other concessions. |
| Knowledge of sentencing exposure / Crim.R. 11 compliance | Court fully complied with Crim.R. 11; record shows appellant was advised of minimums, maximums, and mandatory terms. | He did not understand potential exposure (shocked at 25-year sentence); counsel misled him about mandatory time. | Affirmed — transcript shows detailed advisements; attorney predictions about sentence likelihood do not invalidate plea. |
| Postsentence motion to withdraw plea (manifest injustice) | Deny: defendant failed to show a manifest injustice; trial court properly considered plea colloquy, PSI, victim impact, and sentencing factors. | The sentence and circumstances constitute manifest injustice warranting withdrawal of plea. | Affirmed — no manifest injustice; not an extraordinary case; plea and sentence within lawful ranges. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel adequately advised and argued mitigating factors at sentencing; any prediction about sentence length isn’t prejudicial error. | Counsel failed to accurately advise on sentencing exposure and failed to present mitigating evidence fully. | Affirmed — counsel’s performance not deficient; mitigating factors were presented; no Strickland prejudice shown. |
| Sentence contrary to law / consideration of mitigating youth factors | Sentence complied with R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; court considered PSI, victims, and mitigating arguments; Durrette was an adult (21) so juvenile-specific holdings (Long) don’t apply. | Sentence ignored mitigating factors (youth, trauma, mental health) and should be reduced or vacated; Long rationale should inform sentencing for young adults. | Affirmed — sentence within statutory ranges, trial court considered required factors; Long does not extend to adults 18+; not contrary to law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hand, 149 Ohio St.3d 94, 2016-Ohio-5504, 73 N.E.3d 448 (Ohio 2016) (juvenile adjudications cannot be treated as adult convictions for sentence enhancement).
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel).
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (use of prior convictions to enhance sentence does not violate due process where prior process afforded jury trial).
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 660 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1996) (defendant must have knowledge of maximum penalty to enter constitutional plea).
- State v. Long, 138 Ohio St.3d 478, 2014-Ohio-849, 8 N.E.3d 890 (Ohio 2014) (sentencing courts must consider youth as mitigating for juvenile offenders when imposing life without parole).
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (Ohio 1977) (postsentence plea withdrawal requires showing of manifest injustice).