State v. Martin, 2011 Ohio 6408

Dustin Martin was indicted in Mahoning County for five counts of burglary and one count of attempted burglary.
Martin pled guilty to the charged offenses under Crim.R. 11 after a plea agreement.
He was sentenced to an aggregate four-year prison term, with concurrent sentences on all counts.
Appointed counsel filed a no-merit (Anders) brief and sought leave to withdraw; Martin did not file a pro se brief.
The Seventh District reviewed the record independently to determine if any appealable issues existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy compliance	State argues the plea colloquy substantially complied with Crim.R. 11.	Martin contends there were deficiencies in advising about constitutional and nonconstitutional rights.	Plea colloquy substantially complied; plea knowingly entered.
Sentence within statutory range and reasonableness	State contends sentence was within statutory ranges and properly weighed factors.	Martin argues the sentence should be scrutinized for possible abuse of discretion.	Sentence within range and not an abuse of discretion.

State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (Crim.R. 11 plea-colloquy strict compliance; prejudice required if nonconstitutional advisement failed)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008-Ohio-509) (nonconstitutional advisements; postrelease control included in maximum penalty)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990-Ohio-101) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional advisements)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (silent record may satisfy consideration of sentencing factors)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step review of felony sentences; within-range discretion)
State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208 (2000-Ohio-446) (rebuttable presumption that sentencing complied with statutory factors when record silent)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy and guilty plea validity emphasis)