State v. Massie
2021 Ohio 3376
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Allan W. Massie pleaded guilty on June 11, 2020 to one count of second-degree robbery and signed a plea form acknowledging a maximum penalty of 8–12 years imprisonment and a $15,000 fine.
- At the plea hearing the court advised the maximum penalty as “eight to twelve years,” remarked it “may be a little bit confusing,” asked Massie if he understood it was an “indefinite sentence of eight to twelve years,” and Massie said he understood; the court did not further explain the Reagan Tokes indefinite-sentencing scheme.
- The court accepted the plea, ordered a PSI, and at sentencing (July 1, 2020) imposed the 8–12 year indefinite term (the maximum) but did not orally give the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications; those notifications did appear in the written judgment entry.
- Massie appealed, asserting (1) his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the court failed to explain the indefinite nature of the sentence at the plea hearing, and (2) his indefinite sentence is contrary to law because the court failed to provide the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notices at the sentencing hearing.
- The Court of Appeals held Massie’s plea was valid (no complete Crim.R. 11 omission and no showing of prejudice), but the sentence was contrary to law because the required notices under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) must be given at the sentencing hearing and were not.
- The court affirmed the conviction in all other respects, reversed the sentence, and remanded solely for resentencing to comply with R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Massie’s guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered given the court’s limited explanation of the Reagan Tokes indefinite 8–12 year maximum. | State: The court correctly stated the 8–12 year maximum and Massie acknowledged understanding; no prejudice shown. | Massie: Plea involuntary because the court failed to explain the indefinite sentencing scheme and the 8–12 variance. | Court: Plea valid — court did not completely fail to advise under Crim.R.11(C)(2)(a); Massie did not demonstrate prejudice. |
| Whether the 8–12 year indefinite sentence is contrary to law because the court failed to provide the R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notices at the sentencing hearing. | State: Including the notices in the written judgment entry suffices to “notify the offender.” | Massie: Statute requires oral notification at the sentencing hearing. | Court: Statute requires the notifications be given at the sentencing hearing; omission renders sentence contrary to law. Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dangler, 164 N.E.3d 286 (Ohio 2020) (Crim.R.11 plea procedures and exceptions for vacatur)
- State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (prejudice requirement to vacate plea)
- State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 2008) (failure to advise of constitutional rights presumes plea involuntary)
- State v. Sarkozy, 881 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 2008) (complete omission under Crim.R.11 eliminates prejudice requirement)
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
- Brennaman v. R.M.I. Co., 639 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio 1994) (statutory construction — words carry settled meaning)
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (U.S. 2013) (related statutory provisions construed together)
- Spencer v. Freight Handlers, Inc., 964 N.E.2d 1030 (Ohio 2012) (construing related statutory sections together)