State v. Imber
2012 Ohio 3720
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Imber pled guilty to ten fourth-degree felonies on May 4, 2011 in exchange for a 12-year aggregate cap in exchange for cooperation in a co-defendant’s prosecution.
- The court imposed an 18-month sentence for Count Three on May 5, 2011 and reserved sentencing on the other charges.
- The State moved to withdraw the plea agreement after Imber allegedly refused to cooperate; the court held the motion in abeyance to allow fuller consideration after the co-defendant’s trial.
- At an August 12, 2011 hearing, the court found Imber had partially failed to cooperate and imposed a longer aggregate sentence (13.5 years) than initially agreed.
- A final judgment related to all ten charges was entered on August 16, 2011, and Imber timely appealed.
- The appellate court reviews the trial court’s Crim.R. 11 compliance and sentencing procedures for potential constitutional and statutory errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crim.R.11 compliance at plea | Imber contends pleas were not knowing and intelligent | State argues substantial compliance | First assignment overruled |
| Post-release control notice at August 12 sentencing | State contends proper notice given; no error | Court failed to notify post-release control for nine sentences | Error found; remand to satisfy 2929.191(C) procedures (nunc pro tunc) |
| Merger of Counts Five and Six; sentencing validity | State argues no mandatory merger required | Imber argues improper sentencing merger | Second assignment sustained in part (merger issue addressed) and otherwise overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio St.3d 1990) (substantial compliance suffices for knowing, intelligent guilty plea)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (2004-Ohio-6085) (required post-release control notice at sentencing; notice must be given; remedy via 2929.191(C))
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (remedy for post-release control error is nunc pro tunc under 2929.191(C))
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (presumption of considering the factors; not required to state consideration in every case)
- State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (2010-Ohio-6314) (merger analysis under 2941.25;, separate conduct and animus governs merger)