2022 Ohio 1341
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Heinzen and co-defendant were indicted after their 21-month-old son died of severe dehydration after being left unattended; charges included involuntary manslaughter and child endangering.
- Heinzen pled guilty under a plea agreement to amended charge of attempted involuntary manslaughter (second-degree felony) in exchange for dismissal of child endangering and agreement to testify; plea form identified attempted involuntary manslaughter and Heinzen signed it after conferring with counsel.
- At the plea hearing the prosecutor recited facts and the court accepted the plea; the trial court recited the elements of involuntary manslaughter but did not expressly explain the statutory "attempt" element.
- A PSI was ordered; at sentencing the court imposed the maximum eight-year prison term (within statutory range) and a mandatory three-year period of post-release control, but the court failed to orally advise Heinzen of all consequences for violating post-release control.
- Heinzen appealed, arguing (1) her plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the court/State misdescribed the charge, and (2) her sentence was contrary to law for failing to consider R.C. 2929.12 factors and for inadequate post-release-control advisement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heinzen's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary given that the court recited involuntary manslaughter elements rather than the attempt statute | State: Totality of circumstances show Heinzen understood the charge — plea form identified attempted involuntary manslaughter, prosecutor recited facts, defendant confirmed understanding, counsel made no objection | Heinzen: Court and State misinformed her about the nature/elements of attempted involuntary manslaughter, so plea was not knowing/voluntary and should be vacated | Overruled. Plea was knowing/voluntary under the totality of circumstances; Heinzen failed to show prejudice from omission of the attempt-element explanation. |
| Whether the sentence is contrary to law because the trial court failed to fully consider R.C. 2929.12 and failed to properly advise about post-release control consequences | State: Sentencing entry expressly stated the court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; the eight-year term is within the statutory range. State concedes the court failed to fully orally advise on post-release-control consequences | Heinzen: Trial court did not properly weigh seriousness/recidivism factors and did not fully advise of post-release-control consequences (including potential prison for violating PRC) | Partly sustained. Sentence within statutory range and court's written entry shows consideration of 2929.11/2929.12 so not contrary to law on that basis; but post-release-control advisement at the hearing was incomplete, rendering that portion contrary to law — remand for resentencing limited to proper PRC advisement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for appellate counsel to file brief asserting no arguable issues)
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (2020) (defendant must show prejudice from Crim.R.11(C) noncompliance unless exceptions apply)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (test for prejudice: whether the plea would otherwise have been made)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (failure to advise of constitutional rights under Crim.R.11(C)(2)(c) requires no prejudice showing)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (complete failure to comply with Crim.R.11 eliminates prejudice burden)
- State v. Rainey, 3 Ohio App.3d 441 (1982) (totality of circumstances may establish a defendant’s understanding of the charge)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (2017) (trial court must advise offender at sentencing of post-release-control term, whether mandatory/discretionary, and consequences of violation)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004) (post-release-control advisement requirement)
- State v. Harper, 160 Ohio St.3d 480 (2020) (error in post-release-control advisement renders sentence voidable and subject to correction on direct appeal)