State v. Jackson
2012 Ohio 3348
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Jackson was indicted on one count of gross sexual imposition and two counts of burglary in Hamilton County.
- During plea, the trial court failed to inform that guilty plea to gross sexual imposition would trigger Tier I sex-offender status and related reporting requirements.
- At sentencing, Jackson moved to withdraw his pleas; the court found gamesmanship and denied withdrawal, and he was sentenced.
- On appeal, the issue concerned whether the plea was knowing because of the missing registration information.
- The court reversed the gross-sexual-imposition conviction, vacated that count, and remanded for proceeding on that count; burglary convictions were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err by not informing of Tier I requirements? | Jackson's plea was not knowing without Adam Walsh Act information. | The court properly addressed plea and did not abuse discretion regarding withdrawal. | Conviction for gross sexual imposition reversed; remand for that count; burglary counts affirmed. |
| Is the second assigned error moot? | Misinformation about Tier I requirements affects the plea. | Issue is moot after disposition of first assignment. | Moot; not addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (Crim.R. 11 colloquy requirement for knowing pleas)
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011-Ohio-3374) (Adam Walsh Act penalties are punitive and part of the offense)
- State v. Maggard, 2011-Ohio-4233 (1st Dist. No. C-100788) (misinformation on some counts does not affect other counts)