2017 Ohio 8419
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Travonte E. Harris was indicted on multiple offenses; pursuant to a plea agreement he pled no contest on March 10, 2017 to felonious assault (second-degree) and having a weapon while under disability (third-degree) under a new bill of information.
- The plea agreement stipulated a total five-year sentence (2 years for felonious assault — mandatory due to a prior conviction — and 3 years for the weapon offense), to be served consecutively; the State and defense agreed the State would not seek to reimpose remaining post-release control (PRC) time from a 2009 conviction.
- At the plea colloquy the court informed Harris he would be subject to mandatory PRC for the felonious assault and discretionary PRC for the weapon count, and recorded the parties’ agreement not to pursue the prior PRC time.
- Harris appealed, arguing his no-contest pleas were not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial court did not inform him at the plea hearing that any additional prison term imposed for violating his earlier PRC would be required by statute to run consecutively to the new felony sentences.
- The trial court imposed the stipulated five-year sentence and did not impose additional prison time for the 2009 PRC violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harris’ plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 because the court failed to advise him that any prison term for revocation of prior PRC must be served consecutively to new felony terms. | The State argued the court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11, Harris was informed of PRC for the new convictions, the parties agreed the State would not pursue the old PRC time, and Harris suffered no prejudice. | Harris argued the court failed to inform him of the mandatory consecutive nature of any PRC revocation term under R.C. 2929.141(A)(1), rendering his plea invalid. | The court affirmed: although the trial court did not advise Harris of the mandatory consecutive nature of any PRC-revocation term, Harris failed to show prejudice; the court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 and the plea stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462 (trial courts should literally comply with Crim.R. 11 and guidance on plea colloquies)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 1990 (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 requirements)
- State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130, 1988 (informing defendant of maximum penalty is statutory, not constitutional)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621 (when nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 rights are at issue, defendant must show prejudice to vacate plea)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509, 881 N.E.2d 1224 (complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 removes prejudice analysis)