State v. McMahon
2015 Ohio 3300
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Bradley G. McMahon was indicted on 11 counts of third-degree felony sexual battery for acts against his stepdaughter (May–Oct 2013).
- He pleaded guilty to three counts in a plea deal; eight counts were dismissed.
- At the plea hearing the court said he "will be required to register pursuant to Chapter 2950" but did not state he would be classified as a Tier III offender or explain Tier III consequences.
- The court later sentenced McMahon to three 60-month terms (two consecutive, one concurrent) for an aggregate 120-month prison term.
- McMahon appealed, arguing (1) his plea was involuntary because the court failed to inform him of punitive Tier III registration consequences under Crim.R. 11; and (2) the sentence was erroneous (the sentencing challenge was rendered moot by the plea ruling).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 when court failed to explain Tier III consequences | McMahon: court did not inform him he would be Tier III or explain lifetime in-person verification every 90 days and community notification, so plea was not knowing/voluntary | State: court told him he "will be required to register pursuant to Chapter 2950," which substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 | Court held plea was invalid because the court failed to inform McMahon of Tier III classification and its punitive consequences; plea vacated without showing prejudice |
| Whether trial court erred in sentencing after plea challenge | McMahon: sentencing error claimed but contingent on plea validity | State: sentencing stands if plea valid | Moot — court declined to address sentencing because plea was vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (distinguishes constitutional vs. nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 rights and prescribes review standards)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (purpose of Crim.R. 11 is to ensure defendant makes voluntary, intelligent plea)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial-compliance test for nonconstitutional plea rights)
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011) (R.C. Chapter 2950 registration/notification requirements are punitive and must be explained before accepting a plea)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 requires vacatur without prejudice analysis)