2018 Ohio 1338
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Ralph Goad was indicted on multiple counts: several breaking-and-entering (5th-degree felonies), burglary counts originally charged as 2nd-degree felonies (amended to 3rd-degree), and one count of attempted burglary (3rd-degree).
- Under a Crim.R. 11 plea agreement Goad pled guilty to the amended counts; the state recommended a total 15-year prison term and reserved the right to recommend that term while Goad could argue for less.
- At sentencing the court imposed 30 months on six amended burglary counts to run consecutively, additional concurrent and concurrent shorter terms on other counts, resulting in an aggregate stated prison term of 15 years; three years of mandatory postrelease control was imposed and 280 days of jail-time credit awarded.
- Appellate counsel filed a no-merit (Anders/Toney) brief seeking permission to withdraw; Goad was notified and did not file a pro se brief.
- The appellate court reviewed the record and found the plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11, but the trial court failed to make the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings at the hearing or in the journal entry.
- The court affirmed the convictions, vacated the sentence, remanded for resentencing with proper consecutive-sentence findings, and allowed appointed counsel to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea under Crim.R. 11 (constitutional and nonconstitutional advisements) | State contends plea colloquy was adequate and complied with Crim.R. 11 | Goad did not file a pro se brief contesting the plea; counsel found no meritorious plea challenge | Court: plea valid — strict compliance on constitutional rights and substantial compliance on nonconstitutional rights; no appealable error on plea |
| Imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | State supported 15-year aggregate and recommended consecutive terms; argued sentence lawful | Goad argued (via counsel review) there were grounds to challenge sentencing procedure; primary contest was absence of required findings | Court: trial court failed to make required statutory consecutive-sentence findings at sentencing and in the entry; sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing |
| Counsel’s motion to withdraw (Anders/Toney procedure) | State did not oppose withdrawal after review | Goad did not oppose or file pro se points | Court: granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw after independent review and providing time to defendant to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (withdrawal procedure when counsel deems appeal frivolous)
- Toney v. State, 23 Ohio App.2d 203 (7th Dist.) (local procedure for no-merit appellate briefing)
- Bonnell v. Ohio, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must state R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing and in journal entry)
- Marcum v. Ohio, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)
- Veney v. Ohio, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (distinguishing strict versus substantial Crim.R. 11 compliance)