State v. Hedenberg
2015 Ohio 4673
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Hedenberg pleaded guilty to one count of forcible rape and one count of GSI in CR-12-569273 with SVPs deleted, and to one forcible rape and one GSI in CR-13-575797 with SVPs deleted.
- The court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, informed him of rights and potential penalties, and classified him as a Tier III sex offender.
- At sentencing, Hedenberg sought to withdraw his pleas; the court denied the motion and proceeded to sentence.
- Sentences imposed: 11 years for each rape and 60 months for each GSI, running consecutively for a total of 32 years.
- The court made explicit consecutive-sentence findings at sentencing but failed to journalize them; Bonnell directs nunc pro tunc correction.
- This court affirmed the convictions, remanding for a nunc pro tunc entry reflecting the findings
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the guilty plea knowing, voluntary, and intelligent? | Hedenberg contends medication and understanding undermined voluntariness. | Hedenberg argues insufficient Crim.R. 11(C)(2) compliance. | Plea was knowing, voluntary, and substantially compliant. |
| Was there an abuse of discretion in denying a pre-sentence withdrawal of plea? | Xie standard supports liberal pre-sentence withdrawal. | Court adequately considered withdrawal grounds. | No abuse; motion properly denied. |
| Did the court make the necessary statutory findings for consecutive sentences and incorporate them in the journal? | Findings not journalized, violating Bonnell." | Findings existed in open court. | Findings were made but not journalized; remand for nunc pro tunc entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio Supreme Court 1990) (standards for Crim.R.11; prejudice inquiry under Nero)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (substantial compliance for nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio Supreme Court 2014) (journalization of consecutive-sentence findings; nunc pro tunc correction allowed)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio Supreme Court 1992) (pre-sentence withdrawal standard and procedure)
- State v. Deal, No. 88669 (8th Dist.) (Ohio 2007) (consolidates appellate review of sentencing findings)
- State v. Nordstrom, No. 101657 (8th Dist.) (Ohio 2015) (consecutive-sentence findings and justification)
- State v. Orr, No. 101582 (8th Dist.) (Ohio 2015) (consecutive-sentence rationale in multi-count convictions)
- State v. Hurst, No. 89297 (8th Dist.) (Ohio 2007) (pre-sentencing plea withdrawal considerations)