State v. McIntosh
2018 Ohio 51
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Defendant Christopher McIntosh pleaded guilty in consolidated Scioto County cases to aggravated possession of drugs (2nd degree, with forfeiture), having weapons while under disability, and receiving stolen property, under a negotiated plea producing an aggregate 8-year sentence (four years mandatory).
- The prosecutor had offered the 8-year term (with 4 mandatory) in exchange for recommending community control for McIntosh’s girlfriend, Tammy Criteser, in a related case.
- At the plea hearing McIntosh initially asked for 24 hours to consult family; the prosecutor indicated the offer was being withdrawn, the court urged him to accept, and McIntosh stated he had “no choice” but then accepted the plea.
- The written plea form expressly stated the second-degree possession term was mandatory; the court twice orally described a four-year mandatory term during the plea colloquy and again at sentencing.
- McIntosh appealed, arguing (1) the trial court failed to substantially comply with Crim.R. 11 by not explicitly advising that the mandatory term made him ineligible for community control, and (2) his plea was involuntary because the court and prosecution induced him to plead to spare his girlfriend a harsher sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McIntosh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea failed to substantially comply with Crim.R. 11 because the court did not explicitly advise that the mandatory 4-year term rendered McIntosh ineligible for community control | The court substantially complied: the mandatory 4‑year term was stated in writing and orally multiple times, and defendant showed no prejudice (would have refused plea) | Court never explicitly said ineligibility for community control at plea; written form contained conditional language implying community control might be possible, so plea was not knowing | Affirmed — substantial compliance; no prejudice shown, plea valid |
| Whether the plea was involuntary because the court and prosecution induced McIntosh to plead to benefit a third party (his girlfriend) | Third‑party leniency is permissible if done in good faith; no bad faith or coercion present; defendant acknowledged understanding and acceptance | The prosecutor and judge pressured him and the plea was coerced to spare girlfriend’s sentence, making it involuntary | Affirmed — plea voluntary; third‑party benefit does not render plea involuntary absent bad faith or coercion |
Key Cases Cited
- Veney v. State, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; Crim.R. 11 guidance)
- Engle v. Isaac, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (same constitutional plea standards)
- Nero v. State, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 matters)
- Clark v. State, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 eliminates prejudice requirement)
- Byrd v. State, 63 Ohio St.2d 288 (1980) (judge participation in plea bargaining must not render plea involuntary; scrutiny required)
- Marquez v. United States, 909 F.2d 738 (2d Cir. 1990) (third‑party leniency in plea bargaining does not automatically render plea involuntary)
- Usher v. United States, 703 F.2d 956 (6th Cir. 1983) (courts have upheld pleas despite prosecution offering leniency to others)
- Jabbaar v. State, 991 N.E.2d 290 (Ohio App.) (judge participation in plea negotiations discouraged but not per se invalid)
- Silvers v. State, 181 Ohio App.3d 26 (2009) (invalidating plea where written form incorrectly stated sentence nonmandatory and defendant misled about community control eligibility)