State v. Mahler
2017 Ohio 1222
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Robert Mahler was indicted on two counts of third-degree gross sexual imposition for an incident in September 2010 involving a preschool victim.
- After a competency evaluation (the court found him competent), Mahler pled guilty to one count in exchange for dismissal of the other; the court engaged in a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and accepted the plea.
- At the plea hearing Mahler disclosed limited literacy and said his lawyer read and explained the plea form to him.
- At sentencing counsel expressed continued concerns about Mahler’s competency and possible undiagnosed conditions, but the court proceeded to sentence Mahler to 60 months’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Mahler argued (1) his guilty plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to substantially comply with Crim.R. 11 by not advising him of the punitive consequences of a sex-offender classification under R.C. Chapter 2950, and (2) ineffective assistance because counsel did not seek a second psychological exam.
- The Sixth District vacated Mahler’s plea and remanded, finding the trial court failed to inform him of the Tier II classification and its registration, community-notification, and residential-restriction consequences; the court dismissed the ineffective-assistance claim as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 before accepting the guilty plea | Mahler: court failed to inform him of the punitive consequences of a sex-offender classification (Tier II), so plea was involuntary | State: court told him he would be a sex offender and written plea form mentioned registration; additional info at sentencing sufficed | Court held the plea was not validly taken; trial court failed to inform Mahler he would be Tier II and of Tier II registration (every 180 days for 25 years), community-notification, and residential restrictions, so plea vacated |
| Whether prejudice must be shown given Crim.R. 11 failure on sex-offender consequences | Mahler: no prejudice required where court completely failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 as to punitive registration consequences | State: information at sentencing or in plea form cures any omission | Court: where court completely failed to advise of classification level and its implications at the plea colloquy, the deficiency is fatal and no separate prejudice showing is required |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a second competency exam | Mahler: counsel failed to secure further evaluation despite concerns | State: not argued to be preserved after plea-vacatur | Court: deemed ineffective-assistance claim moot because plea was vacated; did not reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (totality of circumstances test for defendant’s subjective understanding of plea)
- State v. Sarkozy, 881 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 2008) (partial Crim.R. 11 compliance requires prejudice showing to overturn plea)
- State v. Williams, 952 N.E.2d 1108 (Ohio 2011) (sex-offender registration and related requirements are punitive in nature)