2011 Ohio 2404
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Eppinger was charged in two cases: CR-530873 (two trafficking, two possession, possession of criminal tools, and a forfeiture specification) and CR-531519 (one trafficking, two possession, deception to obtain a dangerous drug, and forfeiture specifications).
- He reached a plea agreement: guilty to CR-530873 and to amended counts in CR-531519; remaining counts in CR-531519 were nolled.
- Forfeiture was part of the plea: the total forfeiture amount was $4,931 referenced by the State at the plea and record.
- At sentencing, the court imposed concurrent prison terms in CR-530873 and concurrent terms in CR-531519, to be served consecutively to another Summit County sentence; costs were not addressed at sentencing but later journalized.
- The trial court noted the forfeiture as part of the plea but did not object to the amount; Eppinger and counsel stated they had nothing to say.
- On appeal, Eppinger challenged (1) the forfeiture due process, (2) court costs, and (3-4) the validity of his guilty plea under Crim.R. 11 and postrelease control disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Forfeiture under plea agreement due process | State: forfeiture plea waives statutory procedures; valid under plea. | Eppinger: due process violated by lack of procedural pronouncement. | No due process violation; forfeiture valid by plea agreement. |
| Court costs imposed without hearing | State: costs properly imposed; journal entry compliant with law. | Eppinger: trial court failed to impose costs at sentencing; improper entry. | Costs reversal; remand for limited hearing on costs. |
| Voluntariness and understanding of plea (Crim.R. 11) and postrelease control | State: plea colloquy substantially complied; rights explained as nonconstitutional. | Eppinger: insufficient explanation of forfeiture and postrelease control. | Plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made; substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C); postrelease control properly explained. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008-Ohio-509) (nonconstitutional forfeiture timing reviewed under substantial compliance)
- State v. Gladden, 86 Ohio App.3d 287 (1993) (forfeiture by plea agreementnoting notice and agreement)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (Crim.R. 11 compliance—nonconstitutional rights substantial compliance)