2011 Ohio 6409
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Mack indicted August 26, 2010 on two counts of vehicular homicide under R.C. 2903.06 (A)(1)(a)(B)(2) and (A)(2)(B)(3);
- Mack pleaded not guilty, pursued discovery requests, and moved to suppress evidence, which was denied;
- Mack changed her plea to guilty and the trial court accepted it;
- Convictions merged for sentencing and Mack received a six-year term and lifetime license suspension;
- Appellate counsel filed a no-merit Anders/Toney brief and Mack did not file a pro se brief; the court conducted an independent review and affirmed;
- Procedural posture: criminal appellate review of a guilty plea and subsequent sentence; no meritorious issues found by counsel or the court
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of suppression appeal after guilty plea | State argues suppression issue waived by Mack's guilty plea | Mack contends waiver does not bar appeal of suppression error | Waived; no appellate issue on suppression |
| Crim.R.11 compliance of guilty plea | State contends plea advisements substantially complied with Crim.R.11 | Mack contends nonconstitutional advice was deficient | Plea substantially complied with Crim.R.11; plea knowingly entered |
| Ineffective assistance post-plea | State argues pre-plea issues waived; post-plea claims lack merit | Mack asserts ineffective assistance after plea | No meritorious post-plea ineffective-assistance claims |
| Sentencing within statutory range and discretion | State argues six-year term within range and proper consideration of factors | N/A or lack of challenge to sentencing | Sentence within statutory range; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McQueeney, 148 Ohio App.3d 606 (Ohio App.3d 2002) (waiver of suppression error on plea)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (Crim.R.11 advisements; substantial compliance; prejudicial effect requirement)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008-Ohio-509) (nonconstitutional advisements; postrelease control context)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for Crim.R.11 nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (Crim.R.11(C) advisement standards; trial court duties)
- State v. Maguire, 2009-Ohio-4393 (Ohio App.) (pre-plea ineffective-assistance considerations)