State v. Givens
2015 Ohio 361
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Deonte Givens pled guilty on January 7, 2014 to robbery (with a gun specification) and petty theft in Butler County Court of Common Pleas.
- At the plea colloquy the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) by advising Givens of the constitutional rights he would waive.
- The court failed, however, to advise Givens that the robbery charge carried a mandatory prison term (based on a prior juvenile adjudication for aggravated robbery).
- The court misstated that prison was only a "presumption" and that Givens might earn days of credit — statements inconsistent with a mandatory sentence.
- The plea form and judgment entry did not state the robbery term was mandatory (the plea form marked "N/A" for mandatory/consecutive), and the court explicitly advised mandatory status only with respect to the firearm specification.
- The appellate court reversed and vacated Givens’ plea and sentence, remanding for further proceedings because the plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea was knowing/intelligent/voluntary under Crim.R. 11 | State contended the defendant was advised of mandatory terms (pointing to statements about the gun spec) | Givens argued the court failed to advise him the robbery carried a mandatory prison term and misled him about earning credit | Plea vacated: court failed to substantially/strictly comply with Crim.R. 11 as to the nonconstitutional advisements; defendant did not subjectively understand mandatory nature of robbery term |
| Whether Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) constitutional advisements were met | State: constitutional advisements were properly given | Givens: constitutional advisements were given but nonconstitutional errors still vitiate plea | Court found strict compliance with (c) — rights waiver properly advised |
| Whether nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a),(b) requirements were met | State: substantial compliance overall | Givens: court wholly failed to advise mandatory status for robbery; plea form contradicted advisements | Court held the trial court wholly failed to comply on nonconstitutional advisements regarding the robbery mandatory sentence; error was not harmless |
| Whether remaining sentencing errors (allied offenses, allocution) require relief | State would urge affirmance or harmless error | Givens raised plain error / denial of allocution claims | Court deemed these issues moot because the plea was vacated and the case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (sets standards for Crim.R. 11 review and distinguishes constitutional vs. nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (trial judge must convey accurate information so defendant understands plea consequences)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (defines substantial vs. strict compliance under Crim.R. 11 and prejudice inquiry)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (Crim.R. 11 facilitates an adequate record that plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)