State v. Hart
2016 Ohio 1008
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Richard Jeffrey Hart was indicted on multiple counts for raping his step-daughter; indictments included one count of rape of a victim under 13 and multiple counts of rape by force, later reduced by plea.
- Hart, medically debilitated, waived presence at arraignment, pled not guilty, and later entered an Alford plea to two rape counts and one amended sexual-battery count as part of a plea agreement dismissing other counts.
- The plea hearing included a Crim.R. 11 colloquy; the court accepted the Alford plea as knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and proceeded to sentencing.
- At sentencing the court heard victim impact, allocution from Hart, and the State recommended maximum consecutive terms. The court imposed 10 years on each rape count and 5 years on the sexual-battery count, to run consecutively for a total of 25 years, plus five years post-release control.
- Appellate counsel filed a no-merit (Anders) brief seeking to withdraw; Hart did not file a pro se brief. The appellate court reviewed plea and sentencing issues and affirmed, granting counsel leave to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of plea under Crim.R. 11 (knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently) | State: Court complied with Crim.R.11; plea was valid | Hart: implicit claim of innocence via Alford and concern plea coerced by circumstances | Court: Strict/substantial compliance satisfied; plea valid and knowingly made |
| Acceptance of Alford plea | State: Alford plea permitted where defendant intelligently pleads to avoid greater risk and record supports guilt | Hart: maintained innocence but pleaded for practical reasons | Court: Alford requirements met (factual basis, competent counsel, voluntary decision); plea acceptable |
| Sentencing lawfulness and advisements (post-release control, sex-offender classification) | State: Court properly advised and classified; sentence within statutory range | Hart: no successful challenge raised to advisements or classification | Court: Advisements and classification proper; sentence lawful |
| Imposition of consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) (Bonnell requirements) | State: Court made required statutory findings at hearing and in entry; harms were great/unusual and criminal history warranted consecutive terms | Hart: argued consecutive findings insufficient (implicit) | Court: Findings made on record and in entry; proportionality conveyed by court language; consecutive 25-year aggregate affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for appellate counsel withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (Alford plea: guilty plea while protesting innocence permitted when supported by record and in defendant's interest)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (guilty pleas must be voluntary to satisfy due process)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (consecutive-sentence findings must appear in the record and sentencing entry)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (Crim.R. 11 standards for plea advisements)