2019 Ohio 303
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Darrell Lacy Jones pleaded guilty to fifth-degree felony theft on April 17, 2018 and admitted he was on post-release control from a prior Montgomery County felony.
- The Adult Parole Authority informed the sentencing court that Jones had ~794–796 days remaining on his post-release control term from Montgomery C.P. No. 2015-CR-03898; that letter was included in the PSI.
- At the plea hearing the court advised Jones that a conviction could result in an additional consecutive prison term for violating post-release control (at least one year up to the remaining term); Jones signed a plea form acknowledging possible consecutive revocation sanctions.
- At sentencing the court imposed 12 months for theft and an additional consecutive two-year prison term under R.C. 2929.141 for the post-release-control violation, for an aggregate three-year term.
- On appeal Jones argued (1) his plea was not knowing because the court failed to notify him of the specific post-release-control sanction, (2) the court lacked authority because it never recited the Montgomery County case number on the record, and (3) post-release control was not properly imposed in the prior case.
- The appellate court rejected all three arguments and affirmed conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of plea notice about post-release-control sanction | Court sufficiently advised defendant of court authority to impose consecutive sanction under R.C. 2929.141 | Plea was not knowing/voluntary because court failed to notify him he would receive a consecutive two-year sanction | Court: Advisements at plea and plea form substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 and Bishop; plea valid |
| Requirement to state prior case number on record | No statutory requirement to recite prior case number; defendant and counsel had access to APA letter and PSI | Court lacked authority because it never cited the Montgomery County case number on the record or in entry; prevented collateral attack | Court: No plain error; omission not required and defendant had access to case number in PSI/record; no prejudice |
| Validity of prior post-release-control imposition | Absent record evidence to the contrary, prior post-release control is presumed properly imposed | Post-release control in prior Montgomery County case was invalid, so sanction must be vacated | Court: No evidence provided to show prior error; presumption of regularity applies; sanction stands |
| Preservation/plain error | State contends omission of prior case number was not raised below; review only for plain error | Argues trial court error warrants relief despite lack of objection | Court: Issue waived except for plain error; no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (establishes that guilty pleas must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (explains Crim.R. 11(C) plea requirements)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (defines "substantial compliance" with Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (requires post-release-control notification in both oral pronouncement and sentencing entry)
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (addresses parole-board authority and necessity of proper post-release-control notice)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (holds that failure to impose required post-release control renders that part of sentence void)
- State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (preservation rule that appellate courts generally will not consider errors not raised at trial)