State v. Hart
2024 Ohio 5622
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Austin J. Hart was indicted for theft (F5) and receiving stolen property (M1) in Wood County, Ohio.
- Hart pleaded guilty after being initially misadvised about the maximum sentence.
- He failed to appear at the original sentencing, which led to a warrant for his arrest.
- Upon arrest, Hart and the State reached an agreement: the State would not pursue charges for failure to appear if Hart waived any error regarding the court's failure to advise him about potential consecutive sentences for postrelease control (PRC) violations.
- Hart received a seven-month sentence for theft (concurrent to 180 days for receiving stolen property), plus 476 days consecutive for a prior PRC violation.
- On appeal, Hart argued his guilty plea was not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily due to lack of advisement about the PRC consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Hart's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hart’s guilty plea was valid without clear advisement of PRC | Plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered | Hart waived the advisement requirement for PRC consequences | Waiver was valid; plea stands; the judgment is affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20 (plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (standard for waiver of constitutional rights)