2016 Ohio 5484
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Fleeton was indicted for aggravated riot (4th-degree) and involuntary manslaughter (1st-degree) in connection with a group confrontation that led to Shawn Cortez's death; a co-defendant fired the fatal shot.
- Fleeton pled no contest to both counts after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy; counsel was appointed and an Anders brief was filed on appeal.
- At sentencing the prosecutor described Fleeton as a leader in the confrontation (unarmed but at the front) and noted Fleeton was on bond for a weapons charge at the time.
- The trial court imposed six months (aggravated riot) and five years (involuntary manslaughter), ordered the terms to be served consecutively, and imposed five years of mandatory post-release control.
- The court explained reasons for imposing prison (rejection of community control) and considered statutory sentencing factors, but did not state the statutory consecutive-sentence findings on the record or in the judgment entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fleeton's no-contest plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered under Crim.R. 11 | State: trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 colloquy and plea was valid | Fleeton raised no preserved Crim.R. 11 challenge; no pre-plea motions were at issue | Court held the colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11; plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered |
| Whether sentencing complied with statutory requirements and R.C. 2953.08 standard | State: sentence within statutory ranges, court considered R.C. 2929.11/.12/.13 and properly imposed consecutive terms | Fleeton (on appeal via Anders/no-merit) argued sentencing error existed because required consecutive-sentence findings were not made | Court held sentence terms were within ranges and other requirements met, but reversed in part because the trial court failed to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings on the record and in the entry; remanded for limited resentencing to decide concurrent vs consecutive |
| Whether post-release-control advisement and jail credit were properly handled | State: court properly advised and imposed PRC and awarded jail credit | Fleeton did not successfully challenge PRC or credit | Court found PRC advisement and jail-credit handling proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (request to withdraw counsel when appeal frivolous)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (pleas must be voluntary to satisfy due process)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (totality of circumstances in plea voluntariness)
- State ex rel. Stern v. Mascio, 75 Ohio St.3d 422 (Crim.R. 11 requirements for no-contest pleas)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Crim.R. 11(C) strict compliance for constitutional rights)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (strict compliance on constitutional rights; prejudice requirement for nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (explanation of strict compliance standard)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (substantial compliance on nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make consecutive-sentence findings on record and in entry)