State v. Gosnell
2011 Ohio 4288
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Gosnell was charged by indictment with multiple counts of rape of a child, GSI, sexual battery, sexual imposition, and contributing to delinquency.
- He pled no contest to several counts pursuant to a plea agreement, and the trial court convicted him and sentenced him to an aggregate 20 years, running concurrent with another case.
- Gosnell appealed challenging the adequacy of Crim. R. 11(C)(2) dialogue, specifically the failure to advise the maximum imprisonment.
- The trial court explained the nature of each charge and the maximum penalty for each, and Gosnell indicated understanding.
- The court also advised on concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing and Gosnell answered questions demonstrating understanding.
- The appellate court held the plea compliant with Crim. R. 11(C)(2) and that the pleas were voluntary, knowingly and intelligently made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim. R. 11(C)(2) was complied with | Gosnell contends failure to explain cumulative maximum affected voluntariness | Gosnell argues lack of notification of cumulative maximum renders plea involuntary | Crim. R. 11(C)(2) complied; pleas valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (constitutional rights waiver requires knowing plea)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance for non-constitutional rights)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (U.S. 1969) (context for understanding waivers and plea validity)
- Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (Ohio 1988) (maximum per-charge penalty suffices for knowing plea)