State v. Gilroy
195 Ohio App. 3d 173
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant Nada Gilroy was convicted of receiving property stolen from Wal-Mart valued over $500, a fifth-degree felony.
- At a March 1, 2011 plea hearing, the court promised community-control sanctions conditioned on three requirements, including staying out of trouble until sentencing.
- Gilroy pled guilty following Crim.R. 11 colloquy and the court accepted the plea with the conditional promise of community control.
- At sentencing on March 29, 2011, Gilroy had tested positive for cocaine and marijuana since the plea, and the court sentenced her to 12 months in prison.
- Gilroy appealed, arguing the court breached the plea agreement by imposing prison time rather than community control.
- The trial court later concluded Gilroy breached the plea conditions by using illegal drugs, thereby relieving the court of its promise and allowing a lawful sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court breach the plea agreement by imposing prison? | State contends Gilroy breached the condition by staying out of trouble. | Gilroy argues the court breached its promise of community control. | No breach; Gilroy's illegal drug use breached the condition, releasing the court from the promise. |
| Was Gilroy's guilty plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary despite the breach claim? | State asserts plea was knowingly entered with proper Crim.R. 11(C) compliance. | Gilroy contends breach undermines voluntariness. | Plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered; breach did not render it invalid. |
| Did Gilroy receive effective assistance of counsel given the plea and sentencing issues? | State maintains counsel's performance not deficient given the lack of reversible error. | Gilroy argues counsel should have objected to the sentence or moved to withdraw plea. | No ineffective assistance; no prejudice shown as court correctly addressed the issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adkins, 161 Ohio App.3d 114 (2005-Ohio-2577) (plea agreements as contracts; breach permits rescission or specific performance)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (promises of sentence inducements to plead; failure to perform affects voluntariness)
- State v. Layman, 2008-Ohio-759 (Montgomery App. No. 22307) (breach of plea term limits can require withdrawal or resentence)
- State v. Bonnell, 2002-Ohio-5882 (Clermont App.) (breach of promise not to sentence to prison; need a remedy or withdrawal)
- State v. Price, 2003-Ohio-7109 (Hamilton App. No. C-030262) (breach by defendant voids the promise; consequences for failing to appear)