State v. Miller
2021 Ohio 2424
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Miller was charged with assault (July 2019); he initially pleaded not guilty.
- In December 2019 the state amended the charge to disorderly conduct under a plea agreement; Miller pleaded guilty and the court accepted the plea after Crim.R. 11 colloquy and continued the case for sentencing.
- The court’s journal entry recording the plea did not separately include an express written finding of guilt.
- At sentencing the court, after reviewing a victim-impact statement that suggested more serious conduct, sua sponte withdrew Miller’s guilty plea (citing Crim.R. 32), reinstated the assault charge, and set the case for trial.
- Miller then pled no contest to the reinstated assault charge, was convicted and sentenced; he appealed arguing the court abused its discretion by vacating an accepted plea and violated double jeopardy.
- The appellate court reversed: a trial court may not sua sponte withdraw an accepted guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1, reinstated Miller’s guilty plea to disorderly conduct, and remanded for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Miller's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may sua sponte withdraw an accepted guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1 | The court could reject the plea because the journal entry lacked an explicit written finding of guilt | No criminal rule permits the court to unilaterally withdraw a plea once it has been accepted; plea was voluntary and accepted after proper colloquy | Court held the trial court erred in sua sponte withdrawing the accepted plea; plea reinstated and remanded for sentencing |
| Whether vacating the plea violated double jeopardy | (implicit) state defended trial court’s action | Miller argued withdrawal violated double jeopardy | Court rendered this issue moot after deciding the plea withdrawal was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Knaff, 128 Ohio App.3d 90 (1st Dist.) (acceptance of a guilty plea requires evaluation under Crim.R. 11 but the court is not required to make a separate finding of guilt)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (Ohio 2008) (once a plea is accepted following a proper Crim.R. 11 colloquy, the court shall proceed to sentencing and is not required to enter an independent finding of guilt)