State v. Johnson
2017 Ohio 7775
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 5, 2015, Scott Witkowski was killed after attempting to stop his car from being stolen; police investigation led to Michael Johnson’s arrest.
- Johnson was indicted for murder (first-degree) but filed a motion to suppress that was denied.
- Approximately one month later Johnson entered a plea agreement: guilty to involuntary manslaughter (first-degree) and robbery (second-degree).
- The parties jointly recommended an aggregate 18-year prison term (11 years for manslaughter, 7 years for robbery); the trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, accepted the plea, and ordered a presentence report.
- At sentencing the court considered the PSI, victim impact, and mitigation, found consecutive terms appropriate, and imposed the agreed 18-year consecutive sentence.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues but identified two potential assignments of error: involuntary plea and sentencing error; counsel sought to withdraw under Anders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary | State: Trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 and plea was knowing and voluntary | Johnson: Plea was involuntary and unknowing (proposed) | Court held plea was knowing and voluntary (strict compliance on constitutional rights; substantial compliance on nonconstitutional rights) |
| Whether the agreed 18‑year sentence was lawful | State: Jointly recommended sentence is authorized by law | Johnson: Sentence is contrary to law or not supported by record (proposed) | Court held sentence was authorized by law (within statutory maximums); review limited by R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) for joint recommendations |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Duncan, 57 Ohio App.2d 93 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978) (Anders procedure in Ohio)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (purpose of Crim.R. 11 and requirement to ensure pleas are voluntary and intelligent)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional aspects of plea colloquy)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (Ohio 1977) (substantial compliance vs. strict compliance distinction under Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Colbert, 71 Ohio App.3d 734 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (trial court must strictly comply with constitutional aspects of Crim.R. 11)