State v. Hubbard
2011 Ohio 2770
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Hubbard pleaded guilty to five counts of aggravated robbery; sentenced to 14 years.
- In 2008 Hubbard moved to withdraw his plea arguing the indictment was defective; the trial court denied.
- In 2009 both Hubbard and State moved for resentencing because postrelease control was not properly imposed; the court granted and scheduled resentencing.
- Before resentencing Hubbard moved again to withdraw his plea and to dismiss the indictment; the court denied and resentenced Hubbard to 14 years.
- Hubbard appeals alleging improper denial of the plea-withdrawal motion and unreasonable delay in resentencing.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no error in denying the withdrawal motion and no unreasonable delay in resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Withdrawal of guilty plea due to improper plea colloquy | Hubbard says incomplete Crim.R. 11 compliance invalidates plea | State contends partial compliance; Hubbard failed to show prejudice | Plea upheld; no basis to withdraw |
| Effect of post-release control misimposition on plea validity | Hubbard argues void sentence requires withdrawal | State asserts only the post-release control portion is void and must be re-sentenced | Plea not withdrawn; post-release control issues addressed via resentencing |
| Delay in resentencing after post-release control error | Delay in resentencing was unreasonable | Rule 32(A) not applicable to resentencing for post-release control defects | No unreasonable delay; resentence proper under doctrine |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (when postrelease control not properly included, sentence for that offense is void and requires new sentencing)
- State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (2009-Ohio-1577) (presentence motion to withdraw should be liberally granted; burden on defendant to show basis)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (limits Bezak when only part of sentence void; clarification on postrelease control)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (multitiered analysis for Crim.R. 11 compliance; substantial compliance standard)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (prejudice standard for partial Crim.R. 11 compliance)
- State v. Otte, 74 Ohio St.3d 555 (1996) (trial court credibility determinations may be given weight; not reversible absent error)