State v. Goines
2017 Ohio 8172
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Robert Goines was indicted on six counts involving drug trafficking and possession; he pleaded guilty to Counts 2, 4 (both fifth-degree felonies), and 6 (a minor misdemeanor); remaining counts/specs nolled.
- At plea hearing, court advised Goines of constitutional and nonconstitutional rights; Goines indicated understanding and no questions.
- At sentencing the court orally announced a two-year aggregate prison term but said it would suspend the sentence and place Goines on five years community control if a contemporaneous urine test was negative (or positive only for marijuana); otherwise, Goines would be sent to prison.
- The record does not contain the urine test result nor a reconvened sentencing discussion; the journalized entry reflects a two-year prison term, imposition of postrelease control, and an internal inconsistency on court costs.
- Appellant appealed, raising: inadequate plea colloquy, unlawful revocation of community control, journal entry not matching oral sentence, and failure to advise of postrelease control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Goines) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11 and produced a knowing, voluntary plea | Court complied with Crim.R.11; plea was valid | Trial court failed to engage in meaningful give-and-take and confirm understanding of each right | Held: plea colloquy complied with Crim.R.11; assignment overruled |
| Whether court unlawfully revoked community control without notice/hearing/counsel | Sentence imposing community control was not final (not journalized); court could modify oral, nonjournalized sentence after new information | Revocation without written notice/hearing/counsel violated Crim.R.32.3 and due process | Held: no unlawful revocation — court modified nonjournalized oral sentence after new information; assignment overruled |
| Whether sentencing journal entry conforms to oral sentence (costs and suspended sentence) | Journal entry properly reflects that condition for suspension failed (prison term journalized) | Journal entry conflicts with oral imposition of community control and cost order | Held: partially sustained — journal entry inconsistent on court costs; clerical nunc pro tunc correction ordered; suspension vs. journalized prison not inconsistent given missing test results |
| Whether court properly advised and imposed postrelease control | Postrelease control was addressed earlier at plea but not during sentencing; state concedes error | Court failed to advise of details/consequences of postrelease control at sentencing; journal imposes postrelease control anyway | Held: sustained — postrelease-control portion is void; remanded for limited resentencing solely to impose/advise on postrelease control; sentencing otherwise affirmed except need to clarify Count 6 |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (guilty plea must be made knowingly, voluntarily)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (strict compliance with Crim.R.11 for constitutional rights)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (recommended give-and-take colloquy but not always fatal if not followed)
- State v. Carlisle, 131 Ohio St.3d 127 (Ohio 2011) (judgment final only when journalized; court may amend nonjournalized sentence)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (Ohio 2012) (statutorily compliant postrelease-control notification required at sentencing)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2004) (postrelease-control advisement must be reflected in sentencing entry)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (improper postrelease-control imposition renders that part void and subject to correction)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (Ohio 2010) (defendant must be present at sentencing)