2019 Ohio 4828
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Eckler drove under the influence of multiple drugs, crossed the center line, and caused a head‑on collision that seriously injured an occupant of the other vehicle.
- He was charged with aggravated vehicular assault (felony), OVI, and failure to drive on the right; he pled guilty to aggravated vehicular assault and OVI in exchange for dismissal of the third count.
- At the plea hearing the trial court informed Eckler of the maximum 60‑month sentence and (incorrectly) suggested he might be eligible to earn credit for prison programs; neither party questioned that statement.
- At sentencing the court imposed a mandatory 42‑month term and correctly stated that Eckler was ineligible for judicial release, community control, and earned credit; Eckler made no objection.
- Eckler appealed, arguing his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the trial court misstated his eligibility for earned credit under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)–(b).
Issues
| Issue | Eckler's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary given the court's misinformation about earned credit | Trial court misstated eligibility for earned credit, so plea did not comply with Crim.R. 11 and was invalid | Trial court properly advised Eckler of the maximum sentence and ineligibility for community control; Crim.R. 11 does not require advising about earned credit and any error was non‑prejudicial | Court affirmed: partial compliance with Crim.R. 11; misinformation about earned credit did not prejudice Eckler and plea stands |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (trial court must inform defendant of maximum sentence)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (prejudice standard when Crim.R. 11 errors are non‑constitutional)