State v. King
2011 Ohio 2916
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- King pleaded guilty to one count of failure to comply and two counts of aggravated vehicular assault; remaining counts were dismissed.
- The trial court imposed a nine-year state term concurrent with a ten-year federal sentence arising from the same incident.
- The court imposed restitution and advised the sentence would run concurrently with the federal sentence.
- King moved to modify the sentence the day after sentencing; the trial court denied without a hearing.
- King challenges the plea as not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent and challenges the denial of the modification and related ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the plea knowing, voluntary, and intelligent? | King alleges the court misled him about concurrent vs. federal time. | State contends court properly advised rights and consequences; no promise of shorter state term. | No reversible error; plea valid and knowing, voluntary, intelligent. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying the motion to modify without a hearing? | King claims the court failed to consider good-behavior in relation to federal sentence. | State argues court not required to consider collateral aspects or federal sentence in state case. | Assignment overruled; no abuse of discretion. |
| Was defense counsel ineffective for not raising the good-behavior issue or moving to withdraw the plea? | King claims counsel failed to pursue potential good-behavior reductions and withdrawal. | State asserts plea waiver and no prejudice; counsel acted reasonably. | Assignment overruled; no ineffective-assistance shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Gray v. Karnes, 2010-Ohio-5364 (Franklin App. 2010) (concurrent sentences do not shorten undischarged portions of the other sentence)
- State v. Bellamy, 181 Ohio App.3d 210 (Ohio App. 2d 2009-Ohio-888) (concurrent sentences defined; longest controls discharge date)
- State v. Higgs, 123 Ohio App.3d 400 (Ohio App.3d 1997) (strict vs. substantial compliance for Crim.R. 11; constitutional vs. nonconstitutional requirements)