State v. Field
2013 Ohio 2257
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In January 2011, four complaints charged Field with cruelty to an animal, based on finding dead/emaciated animals on his residence.
- Field was initially not guilty, later declared indigent, and represented by a public defender.
- In May 2012, at a pretrial conference, Field pled guilty to two of the four counts; the remaining two were dismissed, and a five-year probation jointly recommended by state and defense.
- During the plea colloquy, the court explained the plea’s effect and rights waived; Field orally affirmed understanding and entered the plea.
- The trial court sentenced Field to 90 days in jail, suspended, and placed him on five years of probation with a prohibition on owning or possessing animals except for bees; no fine, but costs were imposed.
- Field appeals on five assignments, and the court remands for a costs-only hearing to address proper waiver procedures under Crim.R. 43(A)(1) and R.C. 2947.23(A)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was plea knowingly, voluntarily made? | Field (State) contends Crim.R. 11(E) compliance satisfied; adequacy of plea colloquy questioned. | Field argues the plea was not knowingly or voluntarily made due to element understanding and possible counsel coercion. | Plea complied with Crim.R. 11(E); valid. |
| Is the conviction against the manifest weight of the evidence? | State contends guilty plea forecloses weight challenge; no trial to test elements. | Field asserts the evidence did not prove responsibility for care of animals. | Weight challenge rejected; based on plea admission. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in imposing court costs without indigent waiver? | State argues costs must be imposed; waiver may follow later. | Field asserts indigency requires waiver of costs. | Remanded for costs-only hearing to address waiver under Crim.R. 43(A)(1) and R.C. 2947.23(A)(1). |
| Was there ineffective assistance of counsel regarding costs waiver? | State contends no record of failed waiver request; no basis shown. | Field argues counsel failed to pursue waiver of costs. | Renvoi to trial on remand; ineffective assistance not established on record. |
| Did probation length exceed permissible limits due to plea negotiation? | State notes five-year probation was joint recommendation and tied to plea. | Field contends five-year probation exploits plea outcome and seeks reduction. | Probation length affirmed as part of plea negotiations; permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parish, 2011-Ohio-3751 (11th Dist. 2011) (Crim.R. 11 compliance in petty offenses requires informing defendant of plea effect)
- State v. Wolfe, 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 1775 (5th Dist. 2005) (elements need not be explained for misdemeanor petty offenses under Crim.R. 11(E))
- State v. Davis, 2012-Ohio-527 (11th Dist. 2012) (plea effect and rights waiver discussed in misdemeanor context)
- State v. Joseph, 2010-Ohio-954 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2010) (Crim.R. 43(A)(1) requirement to inform defendant of costs at sentencing)
- State v. Lunsford, 2011-Ohio-964 (11th Dist. 2011) (harmless error analysis regarding failure to inform about costs)
- State v. Petty, 2012-Ohio-6127 (11th Dist. 2012) (notification requirement for potential community service for costs)
- State v. Smith, 2012-Ohio-781 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2012) (requirements for notifying about costs and community service in sentencing)
- State v. John, 2005-Ohio-1218 (6th Dist. 2005) (indigency waiver considerations in sentencing costs)