2019 Ohio 2474
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- David Jensen was indicted in 2017 for four counts of rape and two counts of gross sexual imposition based on alleged conduct in 1992; he entered an Alford plea on November 15, 2017 to two third-degree gross sexual imposition counts.
- The plea form and colloquy reflected Jensen understood the charges, waived constitutional rights, and that the parties agreed to a five-year sentence and nolle prossed the remaining counts.
- After the plea, Jensen filed multiple pro se motions (while still represented); the trial court struck those filings and at sentencing denied an oral request to withdraw the plea. The court accepted the plea and sentenced Jensen to five years imprisonment (journalized January 16, 2018).
- The trial court referred the matter for a HB 180 (Megan’s Law) screen and classified Jensen as a sexually oriented offender; Jensen later argued he was not informed of sex-offender registration consequences during the plea colloquy.
- On appeal Jensen argued (1) his plea was not knowing/voluntary because the court failed to advise him of sex-offender registration consequences, and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his plea. The Sixth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Jensen's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing and voluntary because court did not advise of sex-offender registration under HB 180 | Plea was not knowing/voluntary; court failed to inform him of registration consequences | Registration consequences under Megan’s Law (HB 180) were civil/remedial for offenses committed in 1992 and not mandatory Crim.R. 11 matters; totality of circumstances show Jensen understood consequences | Affirmed: No reversible error; court substantially complied and, given references to HB 180 and prior discussion, Jensen subjectively understood consequences |
| Whether trial court erred by denying motion to withdraw plea pre-sentence | Asked to withdraw plea based on alleged venue/alibi issues and investigative failings | Motion represented a change of heart; record shows venue/alibi issues had been discussed before plea and Jensen knowingly entered an Alford plea | Affirmed: Denial proper after applying Xie factors; motion denied as meritless/change of heart |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (permits a defendant to enter a guilty plea while maintaining innocence to avoid greater exposure)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (trial court must explain rights in a manner reasonably intelligible — Crim.R. 11 principles)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 advisements)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (prejudicial effect standard for Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (pre-sentence motions to withdraw pleas should be liberally allowed; trial court must hold a hearing and consider specified factors)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion standard)