State v. Girts, 2014 Ohio 5545

Robert Girts was convicted of aggravated murder in the 1990s; convictions were reversed and retried; federal habeas litigation resulted in conditional writs and his release pending retrial.
In 2014 Girts pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter (first-degree felony) and insurance fraud pursuant to a plea agreement that contemplated pre-S.B.2 indefinite sentencing ranges.
The trial court imposed consecutive indefinite terms totaling 6 to 30 years and credited jail time; the court’s journal entry included an appellate-waiver clause but preserved certain issues.
Girts appealed, arguing the sentence was contrary to law (indefinite) because H.B. 86, effective before his 2014 sentencing, requires definite terms for first-degree felonies and reclassifies some offenses.
The appeals court concluded H.B. 86 applied to offenses committed before its effective date (per R.C. 1.58 and Section 4 of H.B. 86) and that Girts’ sentences were therefore illegal and void.
The court vacated the indefinite sentence and the plea (mutual mistake about applicable sentencing law), and remanded for trial on the original aggravated-murder count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by imposing an indefinite (6–30 year) sentence	State contended sentence followed plea and court authority under parties’ agreement	Girts argued H.B. 86 required definite terms and lowered classifications, so indefinite sentence was contrary to law	Court held H.B. 86 applied; indefinite sentence was void and must be vacated
Whether the appellate-waiver in the journal entry barred review	State relied on waiver language in plea entry	Girts argued R.C. 2953.08 preserves appeals alleging sentences are contrary to law and such waiver cannot preclude review	Court held sentence-challenge cannot be waived when claiming sentence is contrary to law; review permitted
Whether the plea remained valid given changed sentencing law	State relied on the plea agreement as knowing and voluntary	Girts argued both parties mutually believed pre-H.B. 86 law applied, a mutual mistake of fact affecting the plea	Court found mutual mistake about sentencing law; plea rescinded and vacated
Remedy: Resentencing vs. retrial on original charge	State implicitly sought enforcement of plea or resentencing under agreement	Girts sought relief because plea based on incorrect sentencing expectations; original aggravated-murder charge remained viable	Court vacated plea and sentence and remanded for trial on original aggravated-murder indictment

State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (unauthorized sentences subject to total resentencing)
State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (Ohio 2007) (unauthorized sentences are illegal and void ab initio)
State v. Beasley, 14 Ohio St.3d 74 (Ohio 1984) (illegal sentences void)
State v. Billingsley, 133 Ohio St.3d 277 (Ohio 2012) (plea agreements are contracts; contract principles apply)
State v. Taylor, 138 Ohio St.3d 194 (Ohio 2014) (H.B. 86 amendments apply to certain pre-effective-date offenses per R.C. 1.58)
Girts v. Yanai, 501 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2007) (conditional grant of habeas relief)
Girts v. Yanai, 600 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2010) (affirming district court interpretation and ordering release pending retrial)