State v. Hoagland
2022 Ohio 718
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Defendant Nicholus Brandon Hoagland appealed a conviction after pleading guilty to one count of illegally conveying drugs onto the grounds of a detention facility (third-degree felony).
- Original indictment included additional counts for aggravated drug trafficking and aggravated drug possession; those were dismissed per a negotiated plea agreement.
- Plea terms: waive presentence investigation, State to recommend a prison sentence concurrent with a Madison County sentence, defendant to forfeit specified property and pay court costs.
- Trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 plea hearing, accepted the guilty plea, and sentenced Hoagland to 36 months in prison with up to three years discretionary post-release control, ordered concurrent with the Madison County sentence.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief identifying two potential issues (Crim.R. 11 compliance and sentence length), Hoagland did not file a pro se brief, and the court conducted an independent review.
- Court affirmed the conviction and allowed appointed counsel to withdraw, finding no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 in accepting the guilty plea | Trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a),(b),(c); plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary | Appellate counsel suggested a possible Crim.R. 11 defect (unsafe plea) | Court held Crim.R. 11 requirements were satisfied; plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary |
| Whether the 36‑month prison sentence was erroneous | Sentence falls within statutory range; court considered R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12; concurrent to existing sentence | Appellate counsel challenged the sentence as a potential appeal point | Court held sentence is not contrary to law, statutory factors were considered, and R.C. 2953.08(G)(2) does not permit reweighing; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any nonfrivolous issues and permits defendant to file a pro se brief)
- State v. Jones, 169 N.E.3d 649 (Ohio 2020) (appellate courts may not independently reweigh evidence to substitute their judgment on compliance with R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12)