State v. Foster
121 N.E.3d 76
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Defendant Dorian Foster pled guilty to rape (first-degree felony) under a plea agreement that dismissed a gross-sexual-imposition charge; the court sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment and Tier III sex-offender registration.
- During the plea colloquy the trial court twice told Foster the offense did not carry a mandatory prison term, but also told him it was not considering probation/community control and that it expected to impose a penitentiary sentence of 3–11 years.
- Foster’s written plea form misstated “none” under mandatory prison term and included community-control language describing possible imposition of community control.
- At sentencing the court imposed seven years but did not state the sentence was mandatory; the sentencing entry likewise did not note mandatory time.
- Foster appealed (delayed appeal granted) arguing (1) his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he was not told the rape offense carried a mandatory prison term (affecting community control, judicial release, and earned-credit eligibility), and (2) the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) violated separation of powers by labeling his file “mandatory.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Foster) | Defendant's Argument (State/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered given failure to advise that the crime carried a mandatory prison term (Crim.R. 11) | Trial court misinformed Foster (told him sentence was not mandatory) and plea form was misleading; that misinformation prevented understanding of maximum penalty and ineligibility for community control | Court contends it substantially complied: it repeatedly told Foster community control was not an option and that it intended to impose prison time, so Foster understood consequences | Held: No reversible error. Because the court expressly told Foster community control was not available and it intended incarceration, totality of circumstances shows substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11 and plea was valid. |
| Whether trial court’s failure to advise on ineligibility for judicial release and earned-credit invalidated plea | Foster: misstatements and omissions prevented understanding of ineligibility for judicial release and earned-credit during mandatory term, affecting plea voluntariness | State: Crim.R. 11 does not require advising on judicial release or earned-credit; plea form mentioned possible earned credit and judicial-release language; Foster did not rely on these to plead | Held: No reversal. Court found no requirement to orally advise about judicial release or earned credit here, and Foster did not show those issues affected his decision to plead. |
| Whether DRC labeling Foster’s file “mandatory” without a judicial order violated separation of powers | Foster: DRC printout (not in record) shows administrative designation of “mandatory,” which intrudes on judicial function | State: Printout was not part of trial record and thus cannot be considered on appeal | Held: Dismissed. The printout was not in the trial record; Foster cannot demonstrate error on appeal, so separation‑of‑powers claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (Crim.R. 11 requires colloquy to ensure plea is knowing, voluntary, intelligent)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (trial court need only substantially comply with Crim.R. 11 for nonconstitutional advisements; review totality of circumstances and defendant's subjective understanding)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (strict compliance required for advisement of constitutional rights under Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (plea invalid under a presumption of involuntariness when court fails to explain constitutional rights)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (same: trial court must personally address constitutional advisements)
- State v. Ware, 141 Ohio St.3d 160 (2014) (defendant serving mandatory term cannot apply for judicial release until mandatory terms expire)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (Crim.R. 11 nonconstitutional advisements subject to substantial‑compliance standard)
- State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (1978) (appellate court may not consider materials not in trial record on appeal)