State v. Howard
2017 Ohio 8020
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim (K.J.) reported multiple sexual assaults by her great-uncle James Michael Howard beginning at age 13, escalating through age 18; recorded phone call captured Howard admitting some misconduct.
- Grand jury initially indicted Howard on nine first-degree rape and complicity counts; Howard pled guilty mid-trial to two amended counts of Unlawful Sexual Conduct with a Minor (third-degree felonies) under a plea agreement; remaining counts dismissed.
- At plea, the trial court advised Howard he would be subject to five years of mandatory post-release control (PRC) and — mistakenly under Adam Walsh — Tier II registration twice yearly for 25 years; Howard signed a written plea petition describing PRC sanctioning rules.
- After sentencing (two consecutive 5-year terms; aggregate 10 years), the court held a reclassification hearing and corrected Howard’s sex-offender status to a sexually-oriented offender under Megan’s Law (annual registration for 10 years).
- Howard moved post-sentence to withdraw his plea and appealed, arguing the Crim.R. 11 colloquy was deficient (failure to advise maximum PRC sanctions, incorrect sex-offender advisement, and failure to inform of the Sixth Amendment jury-trial right); the trial court denied the motion and this consolidated appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Howard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the court failed to advise Howard of the maximum penalties related to PRC in the Crim.R.11 colloquy | State: Court substantially complied; oral advisement and written plea form informed Howard of five-year PRC and potential PRC sanctions | Howard: Court did not advise him of the maximum penalties that could be imposed if he violated PRC | Court: Overruled — substantial compliance shown by oral advisement plus written plea petition; no prejudicial ambiguity |
| 2. Whether misstatement of sex-offender classification invalidates the plea | State: Error was corrected by post-sentence reclassification under applicable law; Howard suffered no prejudice | Howard: Plea was not knowing/intelligent because court advised Adam Walsh Tier II registration (25 years) instead of Megan’s Law (shorter) | Court: Overruled — no prejudice; proper remedy (reclassification under Williams) was implemented |
| 3. Whether the court failed to advise Howard of his Sixth Amendment jury-trial right | State: Court explained that pleading would stop the balance of the trial, the right to confront witnesses, and burden of proof — intelligibly conveyed jury-right | Howard: Trial court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R.11 in advising right to jury trial | Court: Overruled — strict compliance satisfied because advisement reasonably intelligible (plea occurred mid-jury trial) |
| 4. Whether the trial court abused discretion denying the post-sentence motion to withdraw plea | State: Plea was knowing/intelligent; errors were non-prejudicial or corrected | Howard: Cites the same Crim.R.11 defects and misclassification as grounds for manifest injustice | Court: Overruled — defendant failed to show manifest injustice; plea withdrawal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. State, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (a plea not knowing or intelligent when parties act on erroneous understanding of law)
- Ballard v. Ohio, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (trial court must explain constitutional rights in a manner reasonably intelligible to defendant)
- Nero v. State, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (distinguishing constitutional and nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 advisements)
- Montgomery v. State, 148 Ohio St.3d 647 (Ohio 2016) (reviewing court may consider the whole record to reconcile ambiguities in plea colloquy)
- Williams v. State, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio 2011) (remedy for incorrect sex-offender classification is resentencing/reclassification under law in effect at the time of the offense)