State v. Fabian
2020 Ohio 3926
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Patrick Fabian pleaded guilty on October 30, 2019 to two counts of third-degree felony drug trafficking pursuant to a plea agreement calling for a 4-year prison term (no judicial release) and dismissal of other charges; the court imposed a $5,000 mandatory fine.
- At the plea colloquy the trial court accepted Fabian’s plea after a Crim.R. 11 exchange but did not orally advise him of potential postrelease control (PRC) before accepting the plea; the plea form, however, disclosed a discretionary up-to-3-year PRC.
- The court proceeded immediately to sentencing, then realized the omission and, before final judgment, orally informed Fabian of PRC and its consequences; Fabian acknowledged understanding.
- Fabian appealed, arguing (1) his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the court failed to advise him of PRC before accepting the plea (Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)), and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to waive the mandatory fine.
- The appellate majority applied Ohio Supreme Court precedent (Sarkozy and the Dangler framework), held the trial court completely failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by omitting PRC during the plea colloquy, vacated Fabian’s plea and reversed his conviction; the ineffective-assistance claim was deemed moot.
- A dissent argued the combined plea-and-sentencing hearing, the plea form, and the court’s post-acceptance advisement cured any defect and that Fabian failed to show prejudice or deficient counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Fabian's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fabian's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered where the trial court failed to advise of postrelease control before accepting the plea | The court’s failure to orally advise of PRC at the plea colloquy violated Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); plea therefore involuntary (relying on State v. Sarkozy) | Because the plea and sentencing occurred in one hearing, and the court informed Fabian of PRC later in the same hearing (and the plea form disclosed PRC), the omission was cured and the plea was voluntary | Vacated plea and reversed conviction; court found a complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and excused any prejudice showing (Sarkozy/Dangler analysis) |
| Whether Fabian received ineffective assistance of counsel by not moving to waive the mandatory fine | Counsel was ineffective for not moving to waive the mandatory fine | Any ineffective-assistance claim is moot after vacating the plea; alternatively, the record does not show a reasonable probability the court would have waived the fine | Court deemed the claim moot (no substantive ruling); dissent would have rejected ineffective-assistance claim on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (trial court must inform defendant of postrelease control during plea colloquy; failure to mention PRC can render plea involuntary)
- State v. Fisher, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (postrelease control is part of a criminal sentence)
- Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504 (2000) (recognizing PRC as part of sentence)
- State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 (2018) (Crim.R. 11(C) plea-colloquy requirements and determinations)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (a written plea form can be considered in assessing voluntariness but does not substitute for required oral advisements)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)