State v. Krouskoupf
2019 Ohio 806
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Harry H. Krouskoupf III was indicted on multiple theft and aggravated robbery counts; he pleaded guilty to one count of fifth-degree theft and two second-degree robbery counts with a repeat violent-offender specification.
- At plea hearing defendant disclosed he was on parole/post-release control.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed 13 years for the plea offenses and found defendant violated post-release control, terminating it and imposing an additional prison term equal to the remaining post-release control time, to run consecutively to the 13 years.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court failed to inform him at the plea hearing that R.C. 2929.141(A)(1) permits a consecutive prison term for a post-release-control violation.
- Defendant also argued ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to seek waiver of court costs; the court treated this second claim as moot after resolving the first.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had to inform a defendant on post-release control, at plea, that a consecutive sentence for post-release-control violation could be imposed | State: No explicit warning about consecutive PRC sanction was required under Crim.R. 11 (per earlier Fifth Dist. precedent) | Krouskoupf: Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) required advising that R.C. 2929.141 may result in a consecutive prison term for PRC violation | Court: Following Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Bishop, trial court must so advise; failure here was total noncompliance and plea vacated |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to waive court costs | State: Not argued separately because plea vacated | Krouskoupf: Counsel erred by not requesting waiver of court costs | Court: Moot in light of vacated plea and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bishop, 152 Ohio St.3d 1404, 92 N.E.3d 877 (Ohio 2018) (Crim.R. 11 requires informing defendant on post-release control that R.C. 2929.141 may permit consecutive prison term for PRC violation)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85, 814 N.E.2d 51 (Ohio 2004) (substantial-compliance test for Crim.R. 11 and prejudice inquiry for nonconstitutional warnings)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance principle)
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1989) (guilty plea is an admission of guilt and waives many trial rights)