State v. Henson
2014 Ohio 3994
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Alfred Wayne Henson pleaded guilty to one count of sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(2)) on Sept. 26, 2013 and was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment.
- At plea and sentencing hearings the trial court repeatedly informed Henson he was a Tier III sex offender required to register for life every 90 days but incorrectly stated he was not subject to community notification.
- Henson signed a plea form (which did not mention sex-offender duties) and an Explanation of Duties form that erroneously indicated “Not Subject to Community Notification.”
- The court never conducted a hearing or weighed the R.C. 2950.11(F)(2)(a)-(k) factors required to exempt a Tier III offender from community notification.
- The Twelfth District concluded the court’s statements and the signed form were affirmative misstatements about community-notification obligations and therefore Henson’s guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henson, as a Tier III offender, was subject to community notification under R.C. 2950.11 | State: Tier III offenders generally are subject to community notification absent a court finding under R.C. 2950.11(F)(2) | Henson: Court misadvised him and he was not told correct notification duties, undermining plea validity | Court: Trial court failed to apply R.C. 2950.11(F)(2); Henson is subject to community notification |
| Whether trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 regarding sex-offender penalties | State: Trial court substantially complied; any error was harmless because duties were explained | Henson: Court affirmatively misadvised him about community notification; misinformation requires vacatur without prejudice showing | Court: Affirmative misadvice about notification violated Crim.R. 11(C); plea must be vacated without requiring prejudice showing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (explains Crim.R. 11 colloquy and substantial-compliance standard)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (addresses substantial compliance for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 rights)
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 324 (2011) (concludes amended R.C. Chapter 2950 is punitive)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (addresses complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 and prejudice analysis)
Summary disposition: The court sustained Henson’s sole assignment of error, vacated his guilty plea, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.