State v. Hendershot
2017 Ohio 8112
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Heath Hendershot was charged with multiple drug- and conduct-related felonies after a confidential informant made controlled buys and Hendershot fled/crashed his vehicle, discarding money and narcotics.
- He signed a written plea form and pleaded guilty to eight counts (various trafficking/possession/tampering/failure-to-comply), with a joint recommended aggregate sentence of nine years; plea form listed "driver's license suspension: 6 mos. up to 5 years" for each count and inaccurately indicated post-release control was optional.
- At plea hearing the trial court corrected the post-release control statement, advising three years of mandatory post-release control for the offense involving risk of serious physical harm; Hendershot confirmed he understood and proceeded.
- At sentencing the court imposed the agreed nine-year aggregate term, waived mandatory fines, ordered forfeiture, failed to impose the statutorily required driver’s license suspension, and erroneously characterized post-release control as discretionary in the sentencing entry/hearing.
- Hendershot appealed, raising three assignments: (1) plea involuntary due to failure to advise of license suspension, (2) plea involuntary due to incorrect advisement on post-release control, and (3) trial court erred by not imposing statutorily mandated sentence terms.
- The appellate court affirmed in part, vacated the post-release control portion for correction, and remanded limited to imposing (a) the mandatory driver’s-license suspension and (b) proper post-release control—finding plea substantially complied with Crim.R.11 and no prejudice shown regarding the license advisement.
Issues
| Issue | Hendershot's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was invalid because trial court failed to orally advise of mandatory driver’s-license suspension | Lack of oral advisement rendered plea unknowing/ involuntary; would not have pled if informed | Plea form expressly listed license suspension and defense confirmed understanding; substantial compliance with Crim.R.11; no prejudice | Overruled: court found substantial compliance via signed plea form and no prejudice; but sentence void in part for not imposing mandatory suspension and remanded for limited resentencing to impose it |
| Whether plea was invalid because trial court misstated post-release control at plea colloquy (mandatory vs. discretionary) | Trial court misinformed about length/applicability of post-release control making plea unknowing | Trial court accurately corrected the plea form at colloquy and defendant affirmed understanding; sentencing entry later mischaracterized post-release control | Partly sustained: plea was valid (defendant told mandatory PRC and agreed), but sentencing erroneously described PRC as discretionary; vacated PRC portion and remanded for limited hearing to impose correct PRC |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to impose statutorily mandated license suspension | Requested full resentencing or imposition of mandated suspension | State concedes omission and agrees correction limited to imposing suspension | Sustained in part: omission renders sentence void in part; remand for resentencing limited to imposing mandatory license suspension (no de novo resentencing) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (trial court must strictly advise certain constitutional rights under Crim.R.11(C)(2)(c))
- State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (substantial-compliance standard and "whether plea would have otherwise been made" prejudice test)
- State v. Stewart, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (Ohio 1977) (distinction between strict and substantial compliance with Crim.R.11)
- State v. Harris, 972 N.E.2d 509 (Ohio 2012) (when mandatory license suspension omitted, that part of sentence is void and resentencing is limited to imposing the statutorily required term)