State v. Miller
2014 Ohio 1803
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Aaron S. Miller was indicted on multiple counts arising from a break-in, including burglary, grand theft of a firearm, possession of criminal tools, attempted vehicle theft, theft, and breaking-and-entering.
- Parties reached a plea arrangement: Miller pled guilty to breaking-and-entering and theft (Counts 5 and 6); the State dismissed the remaining counts.
- At the plea hearing the prosecutor stated the State would recommend twelve months on each count, to be served consecutively (total 24 months); defense counsel confirmed the agreement and Miller acknowledged understanding.
- A signed Petition to Enter Plea of Guilty informed Miller that each count carried a maximum of 12 months and that the sentences could be consecutive.
- The trial court sentenced Miller to 12 months on each count, ordered the sentences to run consecutively, and dismissed the other counts. Miller appealed, arguing the court erred by imposing maximum and consecutive sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller can challenge maximum sentences imposed after his guilty plea | State: Sentencing was authorized by law and/or part of the plea recommendation; appeal barred | Miller: Trial court erred in imposing maximum sentences | Court: Appeal barred under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) for agreed pleas; alternatively barred by invited error doctrine |
| Whether Miller can challenge consecutive sentences imposed after his guilty plea | State: Consecutive sentences were part of the plea communication; sentence authorized | Miller: Trial court erred by imposing consecutive terms without proper findings | Court: Miller waived challenge by accepting plea and signing plea petition; invited error doctrine precludes review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Estep, N.E.2d (Ohio App.) (discussing R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bar to appeals of agreed pleas)
- State v. Brown, N.E.2d (Ohio App.) (same)
- State v. Hicks, N.E.2d (Ohio App.) (invited error doctrine prohibits a party from profiting from an error they induced)
- State v. Rizer, N.E.2d (Ohio App.) (invited error applied to plea situations)
- State v. Barnett, N.E.2d (Ohio App.) (invited error in negotiated plea contexts)
- State v. Marcum, N.E.2d (Ohio App.) (invited error and plea agreements)
- State v. Black, N.E.2d (Ohio App.) (explaining R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive-sentence findings requirement)
- State v. Midlam, N.E.2d (Ohio App.) (three-step consecutive sentence analysis under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4))
(Notes: The court affirmed the sentence, concluding Miller either agreed to the maximum and consecutive terms as part of his plea or is precluded from challenging them under the invited error doctrine. Judge Hoover dissented, contending the trial court failed to make the statutorily required findings for consecutive sentences.)