State v. Gunter
2017 Ohio 7247
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jared A. Gunter was indicted on burglary, grand theft, and petty theft; he pleaded guilty to amended burglary (R.C. 2911.12(B)) and grand theft (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1)), both fourth-degree felonies; one count was nolled.
- As part of the plea, Gunter agreed to $1,300 restitution.
- The trial court sentenced Gunter to 12 months on each count, to be served concurrently, and advised him of up to three years discretionary postrelease control.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief requesting leave to withdraw, identifying two potential issues: sentence legality/support in the record, and whether the pleas were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
- This court conducted an independent review of the record; Gunter received notice and time to file his own brief but did not do so.
- The court concluded no nonfrivolous issues exist, granted counsel leave to withdraw, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence was contrary to law or unsupported by clear and convincing evidence | State: Sentence within statutory range; court considered statutory sentencing factors; sentence lawful and supported | Gunter (argued as possible issue): Sentence could be challenged as unsupported or contrary to law | Court: Record shows proper consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; sentence not clearly and convincingly contrary to law; no meritorious issue |
| Whether guilty pleas were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent under Crim.R. 11 | State: Court conducted full Crim.R. 11 colloquy and advised Gunter of rights and consequences | Gunter (as possible issue): Pleas may not have been knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered | Court: Transcript shows complete Crim.R. 11 colloquy including constitutional rights; pleas valid; no meritorious issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedural requirements when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (constitutional rights waived by plea must be knowingly and voluntarily relinquished)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under both federal and state constitutions)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (Crim.R. 11(C) requires strict compliance for constitutional rights)
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011) (trial court need not use talismanic language or make specific findings when considering R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12)