State v. Hale
2014 Ohio 4981
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Russell Hale pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea to three counts of aggravated trafficking in drugs (two fourth-degree, one third-degree) and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (first-degree); other counts were dismissed.
- Court deferred sentencing and later imposed aggregate prison time (six years for RICO count plus concurrent terms), statutory mandatory fines ($1,000 on two 4th-degree counts and $5,000 on the 3rd-degree count), and license suspensions.
- Before sentencing defense counsel told the court Hale was unable to pay mandatory fines but had not filed an affidavit of indigency or a formal motion to waive fines under R.C. 2929.18.
- The record contains counsel’s remarks about Hale’s age, serious health problems, Social Security disability income, and counsel’s assertion Hale could not pay fines; the trial court did not expressly consider Hale’s present and future ability to pay.
- Hale appealed raising four assignments of error: ineffective assistance for failing to file an indigency affidavit; trial court’s failure to consider ability to pay; failure to comply with Crim. R. 11(F) re: plea agreement terms; and that his plea was not knowing because elements were not explained on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hale) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance for failing to file affidavit of indigency under R.C. 2929.18(B)(1) | Trial court properly imposed mandatory fines because no timely affidavit was filed | Counsel was deficient for not filing affidavit; reasonable probability court would have found Hale indigent and exempted fines | Court: Counsel deficient and prejudice shown; sustain error as to fines and remand for hearing under R.C. 2929.18(E) and 2929.19(B)(5) |
| 2. Trial court failed to consider present and future ability to pay | Court argues consideration can be inferred and no specific procedure required | Hale argues court never considered ability to pay before imposing mandatory fines | Court: premature in light of disposition on Assignment 1; remand for required consideration |
| 3. Crim. R. 11(F) violation for not stating prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation on record | State: written plea agreement filed; recommendation not an essential, binding term | Hale: prosecutor’s recommendation was an essential part of the plea that should be stated on record | Court: Overrules Hale — recommendation was rejected by Hale and not prejudicial; no reversible Crim. R. 11(F) error |
| 4. Plea not knowing/voluntary because elements not explained on the record | State: judge may rely on defendant’s counsel and written plea; elements were discussed | Hale: elements were not sufficiently explained on the record to make plea knowing | Court: Overrules Hale — defendant stated satisfaction with counsel, written plea set out elements, and elements were addressed in open court; plea was knowing and voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio adoption of Strickland two-prong standard)
- State v. Moore, 135 Ohio St.3d 151 (Ohio 2012) (timeliness of indigency affidavit controls imposition of mandatory fines)
- Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175 (plea-taking judge may rely on competent counsel’s assurance that defendant understands nature/elements of charges)