State v. Freeman
2021 Ohio 2283
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Defendant Ibin Freeman pled guilty to four counts of robbery, one count of aggravated robbery with a firearm specification, one count of attempted felonious assault, and one count of failure to comply. He was sentenced to 9.5 years in prison.
- Freeman appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) his guilty pleas were not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the court failed to advise him he was ineligible for community control under Crim.R. 11(C); (2) the court incorrectly required him to register on the violent-offender registry; and (3) the sentencing entry failed to include jail-time credit for time served.
- At the plea hearing the court and plea form correctly stated the mandatory three-year firearm specification and accurately listed minimums on individual counts, but the court did not expressly tell Freeman he was ineligible for community control.
- The State conceded error as to the violent-offender-registry notification and the omission of jail-time credit; while the trial court later entered an administrative entry specifying credit days during the appeal, the original sentencing entry still lacked the required credit notation.
- The court held the plea colloquy substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C) under the totality of the circumstances and declined to vacate the pleas, but sustained the registry and jail-credit errors and remanded for nunc pro tunc correction of the sentencing entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pleas were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent under Crim.R. 11(C) (community-control eligibility not stated) | The court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C); Freeman was informed he faced mandatory prison and the record shows he understood he would be incarcerated | Plea was invalid because the court never advised he was ineligible for community control as required by Crim.R. 11(C) | Court overruled—substantial compliance shown; plea upheld under totality of circumstances |
| Whether court erred by requiring Freeman to enroll on the violent-offender registry | Conceded error by the State | Argued registration was improper because convictions were not for listed violent-offense statutes | Court sustained—registry requirement removed (remand to correct entry) |
| Whether sentencing entry must include jail-time credit days | State conceded error and argued mootness because trial court later entered credit days while appeal pending | Argued original sentencing entry must be corrected to include credit days | Court sustained—sentencing entry must be corrected nunc pro tunc to state number of jail-time-credit days |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 121 N.E.3d 76 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) (explains Crim.R. 11(C) substantial-compliance standard for nonconstitutional plea rights)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (where record indicates defendant knew he faced incarceration, failure to advise ineligibility for probation can constitute substantial compliance)