State v. Hendricks
2017 Ohio 259
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christopher Hendricks and co-defendant Randall Cremeans entered a home, displayed firearms, threatened occupants (including a pregnant woman and two minors), bound adults, and seized phones/IDs. Hendricks threatened violence if a third person did not return home.
- Hendricks was indicted on multiple first-degree felonies (aggravated burglary, kidnapping, aggravated robbery) with firearm specifications and one third-degree weapons-under-disability count.
- He pleaded guilty to the indictment on November 16, 2015; sentencing was deferred for a PSI. On January 12–13, 2016 he received an aggregate 30-year prison term.
- On appeal Hendricks raised six assignments of error: disproportionality; ineffective assistance for failure to move to suppress and for inadequate plea-advisal; Crim.R. 11 violations about advisement of maximum penalties and compulsory process; and failure to properly include post-release control details in the sentencing entry.
- The appellate court affirmed as to assignments 1–5 (finding record support for the plea, advisements, and counsel performance or that claims required facts outside the record), but found the sentencing entry failed to include statutorily required post-release-control enforcement language and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disproportionality of sentence | State: Sentence proportionate given culpability and criminal history | Hendricks: 30-year term disproportionate compared to co-defendant and offense severity | Affirmed — no evidence sentence was constitutionally disproportionate; PSI and record support sentence |
| Failure to move to suppress identification (ineffective assistance) | State: No record basis shown for a suppression motion | Hendricks: Counsel ineffective for not moving to suppress alleged improper photo lineup | Affirmed — record contains no facts supporting a suppression motion; no prejudice shown |
| Counsel failed to advise on minimum/maximum penalties (ineffective assistance) | State: Court informed defendant of penalties; claims rest on facts outside record | Hendricks: Counsel did not adequately advise him of sentencing exposure before plea | Affirmed — advisement occurred on record; claim depends on evidence outside record and better suited for post-conviction review |
| Crim.R.11 colloquy (maximum penalties and compulsory process) | State: Court substantially complied with Crim.R.11; defendant understood plea | Hendricks: Court failed to ensure he understood maximum penalties and right to compulsory process | Affirmed — court substantially complied and defendant not prejudiced |
| Post-release control language in sentencing entry | State: Entry stated post-release control mandatory for five years | Hendricks: Entry failed to state consequences of violating post-release control | Reversed in part — sentencing entry omitted required language about parole board authority to impose up to one-half of the original term on violation; remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (presumption counsel strategy)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (Crim.R.11 substantial-compliance test)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (2009) (post-release-control sentencing correction requirement)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010) (post-release-control consequences must be stated)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (sentence omitting statutorily mandated post-release control is void)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (prejudice test for non-constitutional plea requirements)