State v. Jones
2017 Ohio 7722
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Milton J. Jones was indicted in two Cuyahoga County cases: one for receiving stolen property (fourth-degree felony) and another charging multiple felonies including aggravated robbery (first-degree) and felonious assault (second-degree).
- Jones pleaded guilty to the receiving-stolen-property count in CR-16-604475-C and, by amended indictment, to one count of aggravated robbery (with a one-year firearm specification) and one count of felonious assault in CR-16-604781-A; remaining counts were nolled.
- At the plea hearing the court discussed potential postrelease control terms and advised Jones he faced a possible three-year term for the fourth-degree felony and a mandatory five-year term for aggravated robbery.
- The trial court sentenced Jones to an aggregate prison term of 4 years, 9 months, and stated at sentencing that Jones faced “up to five years, mandatory” postrelease control for the aggravated robbery conviction; the court did not impose a three-year discretionary postrelease control term for the fourth-degree felony at sentencing.
- Jones appealed, arguing (1) his guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and (2) the court failed properly to notify and impose postrelease control. The state conceded the postrelease-control error.
- The court affirmed the voluntariness of the pleas but found error in the postrelease control notification/imposition and remanded for a limited resentencing limited to proper imposition of postrelease control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea under Crim.R. 11 | State: court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 and Jones understood rights and consequences | Jones: plea involuntary; he did not discuss facts with counsel and has low intelligence so did not understand consequences | Court: Plea was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily entered; Crim.R. 11 substantially complied; no prejudice shown |
| Postrelease-control notice & imposition | State: conceded sentencing omitted proper imposition/notification and agreed remand is appropriate | Jones: court failed to properly notify and impose mandatory and discretionary postrelease control terms | Court: Agreed; postrelease-control portion void as to notification; remand for limited resentencing to impose correct postrelease control terms |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (failure to impose or properly notify mandatory postrelease control renders that portion of sentence void)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (distinction: strict compliance required for waiver of constitutional rights; substantial compliance for nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under state and federal constitutions)
- State v. Bowen, 52 Ohio St.2d 27 (1977) (trial court must ensure defendant understands nature of charges and maximum penalty)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial-compliance test: defendant must subjectively understand implications of plea)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (defendant challenging plea must show prejudicial effect from Crim.R. 11 noncompliance)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (discussion of Crim.R. 11 compliance and standards)