State v. McCree
2017 Ohio 791
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Eric McCree was indicted on one count each of possession of cocaine and trafficking in cocaine for conduct on December 21, 2015; police allege he and an accomplice brought 23.21 grams of cocaine to sell to an undercover officer and were arrested before the sale.
- McCree pled guilty to both counts; the trial court merged the counts for sentencing and the state elected to proceed on the trafficking count.
- At plea hearing the prosecutor read a factual statement identifying the amount (23.21 grams) and circumstances; McCree acknowledged hearing and admitting those facts.
- The court advised McCree of the nature of the charges, statutory maximums, mandatory prison term and fines, license suspension, and postrelease control.
- The trial court sentenced McCree to seven years in prison; McCree appealed arguing (1) his plea was not knowing/intelligent/voluntary because he lacked discovery (including lab report/bill of particulars) and (2) the sentence failed to consider mitigating factors under R.C. 2929.12.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McCree) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea | Court complied with Crim.R.11; prosecutor’s factual statement and court colloquy satisfied requirements and McCree admitted the facts | Plea was not knowing/intelligent/voluntary because McCree lacked discovery and a bill of particulars and never saw lab report proving weight >20g | Plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; record shows McCree heard and admitted prosecutor’s factual recitation including 23.21g; no prejudice shown from lack of discovery/bill of particulars |
| Sentencing consideration of mitigating factors | Court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 (in entry and via PSI), balance of seriousness/recidivism supports 7-year term within statutory range | Court failed to consider mitigating factors (education, health, children, lifelong drug abuse, remorse/cooperation) | Sentence upheld as not contrary to law; court considered required factors, relied on criminal history/recidivism, and imposed a lawful term |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Verney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (Crim.R. 11 requirements for felony pleas; plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (defendant challenging a plea must show a prejudicial effect — that the plea would not otherwise have been made)