State v. Frazier
2011 Ohio 1137
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Frazier faced two indictments; he pled guilty to four counts of aggravated trafficking, one count of having weapons while under disability, and one count of possession of drugs in the second indictment, with the first indictment dismissed.
- Sentence: consecutive terms for the drug-trafficking and weapon charges, totaling seven years in prison, plus restitution to Circleville Police Department and court costs.
- Restitution was ordered in the amount of $684 to the Circleville Police Department; the basis for this amount was a police-funded informant drug purchase.
- The trial court did not clarify at the change-of-plea hearing the maximum penalties for the offenses, prompting a challenge to the validity of the guilty plea.
- The defendant argued that Foster severed R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and Ice did not revive it, thus nullifying the consecutive-sentencing findings.
- The State conceded plain error in restitution, since the funds expended by the police were not a victim’s economic loss under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) | Frazier argues plea invalid for not being told max penalty and costs. | Frazier contends lack of informing max penalty and costs violated Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). | Costs are not punishment; substantial compliance suffices; no error in plea validity. |
| Consecutive sentences and R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) | Frazier seeks findings under 2929.14(E)(4) for consecutive sentencing. | Ice did not revive Foster; 2929.14(E)(4) remains severed; no required findings. | Ohio Supreme Court rejected revival of 2929.14(E)(4); no error in sentencing. |
| Restitution to Circleville Police Department | Restitution to police for funds spent is permissible under 2929.18(A)(1). | Funds expended by police to purchase drugs via informant are not a victim’s economic loss. | Restitution order reversed as plain error; police funds were not a recoverable victim loss. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (severed consecutive-sentencing provisions from RC 2929; later discussions in Hodge)
- State v. Hodge, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6320 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2010) (rejected Ice revived view; ruled not to revive Foster provisions)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009) (upheld validity of judicial fact-finding in some consecutive-sentencing contexts but not revived Foster)
- State v. Samuels, 2003-Ohio-6106 (Ohio App. Fourth Dist., 2003) (police department not a victim for restitution under 2929.18(A)(1))
- State v. Montgomery, 2008-Ohio-4753 (Ohio App. Fourth Dist., 2008) (applies Samuels on victim definition for restitution)
- State v. Threatt, 2006-Ohio-905 (Ohio Sup. Ct., 2006) (court costs are not punishment; costs not part of penalty under Crim.R. 11(C))
- State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200 (Ohio Sup. Ct., 2008) (substantial compliance standard for Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a))