2013 Ohio 4592
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In Nov. 2011 Brian Lumbus was indicted on multiple counts including racketeering (engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity), grand theft, and identity fraud; many counts carried forfeiture specifications.
- In Aug. 2012 Lumbus entered a written plea agreement pleading guilty to three counts; the agreement specified an "AGREED sentence of three (3) years" and related conditions (cooperation, no judicial release, forfeiture, packaged pleas with codefendants).
- At the plea hearing the state and defense described the agreement and defense counsel emphasized the three-year agreed sentence as a material term; the court accepted Lumbus’s guilty plea but did not expressly tell him it was not bound by the agreed sentence.
- Before sentencing Lumbus exhibited confusion, asked to keep counsel, then counsel withdrew and new counsel was appointed; Lumbus moved to withdraw his plea asserting lack of capacity (off medications) and confusion.
- The trial court denied the motion to withdraw, then sentenced Lumbus to five years (greater than the agreed three years), explaining it would have accepted three years if Lumbus had taken responsibility; the court added time because Lumbus sought to withdraw and equivocated at allocution.
- The court of appeals held the trial court had accepted the plea agreement without informing Lumbus it might impose a greater sentence, so Lumbus reasonably expected a three-year sentence; his plea was therefore not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. The sentence was vacated and the case remanded to impose the agreed three-year term or permit withdrawal of the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing/voluntary given court did not state it could reject the agreed sentence | State: Plea was knowing; defendant understood terms and voluntarily agreed; he cooperated and kept his part | Lumbus: He entered plea based on reasonable expectation of a three-year sentence and lacked notice the court could impose a greater sentence | Court: Plea not knowing/voluntary because court accepted the agreement without warning it could deviate, so defendant reasonably expected 3 years |
| Whether trial court could impose a sentence greater than agreed after accepting plea | State: Court may impose greater sentence when defendant breaches or court is not bound; here defendant’s conduct justified greater term | Lumbus: He had not breached in a way that relieved court of obligation; the court accepted the contract-like plea | Court: Court had accepted the plea and had not forewarned defendant it might deviate, so imposing 5 years violated due process; sentence vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Buchanan v. State, 796 N.E.2d 1003 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court not obligated to follow negotiated plea but must forewarn defendant if it may impose a greater sentence)
- Nero v. State, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (examines whether defendant was on notice court could deviate from plea terms)
- Akron v. Ragsdale, 399 N.E.2d 119 (Ohio Ct. App.) (discusses trial court discretion implementing plea agreements)
- U.S. v. Holman, 728 F.2d 809 (6th Cir.) (limitations on trial court deviation from accepted plea terms)
- State v. Darmour, 529 N.E.2d 208 (Ohio Ct. App.) (no abuse where court forewarns defendant it may impose a greater sentence)