2019 Ohio 2201
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2013 Christopher Hitt was indicted for rape and gross sexual imposition; he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement amended to sexual battery and gross sexual imposition.
- Sentences imposed: 36 months for sexual battery and 18 months for gross sexual imposition, to run consecutively (total 4.5 years); Hitt classified as a Tier III sex offender.
- The sentencing entry stated Hitt could file for judicial release after serving three years and the court would "take the motion into consideration."
- Hitt filed a motion for judicial release after serving three years (State did not oppose); the trial court denied the motion and denied Hitt’s motion for reconsideration.
- Hitt appealed both the denial of judicial release and, via delayed appeal, his original sentencing entry, arguing (1) the trial court violated due process by refusing to honor the plea agreement and (2) his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the court might deviate from the agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hitt) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the trial court's denial of judicial release when defendant claims the court breached the plea agreement | Hitt: denial breached plea agreement and violated due process, so appellate review is proper | State/Trial Court: denial of judicial release is generally not a final, appealable order absent an alleged State breach of the plea agreement; here the claim is against the trial court, not the State | Court: Dismissed appeal as to denial of judicial release for lack of jurisdiction because Hitt did not allege State breach |
| Whether Hitt’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary given statements about judicial release | Hitt: plea involuntary because he was not informed the court might deny judicial release and a different judge later denied it | State/Trial Court: plea was voluntary; written plea warned prosecutor’s recommendation need not be followed and the court expressly reserved discretion to review prison reports and decide judicial release later | Court: Overruled—plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made; trial court never guaranteed judicial release and had discretion to deny it |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R. 11 colloquy requirements)
- State v. Coffman, 91 Ohio St.3d 125 (Ohio 2001) (determination on shock probation not final appealable order)
- State ex rel. Rowe v. McCown, 108 Ohio St.3d 183 (Ohio 2006) (recognition that order denying judicial release may provide an adequate remedy at law)
- State v. Woods, 141 Ohio App.3d 549 (Ohio App. 2001) (denial of judicial release generally not final, appealable order)
- Thomasson v. Thomasson, 153 Ohio St.3d 398 (Ohio 2018) (due process is a substantial right under R.C. 2505.02)