State v. Moore
2017 Ohio 8483
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Aug. 2010, juvenile Deandre Moore shot into a vehicle, killing Hong Zheng and injuring Bingrong Zheng.
- Moore was mandatorily bound over to adult court and indicted on multiple counts; he pleads guilty to murder with a three‑year firearm specification; other counts were nolled.
- The trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, accepted the plea, and sentenced Moore to 15 years to life plus a consecutive 3‑year firearm term.
- On appeal Moore challenged (1) the mandatory bindover/transfer procedure as violating due process/equal protection (seeking an amenability hearing) and (2) that the plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11.
- The court reviewed the bindover challenge in light of State v. Aalim (reconsidered by the Ohio Supreme Court) and reviewed Crim.R. 11 issues (nature of charge, maximum penalty, community‑control ineligibility, and effects of plea) for substantial compliance and prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Moore's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory bindover violated due process / required an amenability hearing | Aalim was reconsidered; mandatory bindover procedures meet due process/equal protection | Moore: juvenile entitled to amenability hearing before transfer | Overruled; Aalim II controls — mandatory bindover valid, no amenability hearing required |
| Whether trial court failed to explain nature of charge under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) | Prosecutor and plea colloquy sufficiently described murder and firearm spec; court determined Moore understood | Moore: court did not explain elements/nature of murder charge | Substantial compliance found — totality of circumstances show Moore understood the charge |
| Whether court failed to advise maximum penalty | State: prosecutor’s explanation and Moore’s acknowledgement suffice; no prejudice shown | Moore: court did not personally advise maximum penalty | Substantial compliance — prosecutor stated penalties, Moore understood; no prejudice shown |
| Whether court failed to advise effects of plea / ineligibility for community control | State: record shows Moore understood plea effects and ineligibility; omission not prejudicial | Moore: court did not adequately inform him that plea is a complete admission and he was ineligible for community control | Substantial compliance; Moore admitted guilt at plea, did not assert innocence, and made no showing he would have declined plea if told differently |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Aalim, 150 Ohio St.3d 463 (Ohio 2016) (initial decision requiring amenability hearings for bindover)
- State v. Aalim, 150 Ohio St.3d 489 (Ohio 2017) (reconsideration; holds mandatory bindover procedures satisfy due process and equal protection)
- State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (Ohio 2007) (Crim.R. 11 requires advising waiver of certain constitutional rights)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (failure to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11 on constitutional rights invalidates plea)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (Crim.R. 11 adopted to ensure voluntariness and create adequate record)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (prejudice required to vacate plea for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 errors)