State v. Mull
2024 Ohio 370
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Jeremy W. Mull was indicted on multiple charges, including two counts of endangering children and one count of domestic violence stemming from incidents involving his live-in girlfriend and her child.
- Mull entered guilty pleas to the two endangering children counts and the domestic violence charge; an additional felonious assault count was dismissed at sentencing.
- At the time of the offenses, Mull was already subject to postrelease control from a prior case in Sandusky County.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate indefinite prison sentence of 12 to 16 years, which included a consecutive 1-year sentence for violation of postrelease control.
- Mull appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court failed to orally inform him during the plea colloquy about the possibility of a consecutive sentence for violating postrelease control, as required.
Issues
| Issue | Mull's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mull properly advised at his plea of the court's ability to impose a consecutive sentence for violating postrelease control? | Trial court failed to orally advise; pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily made | No prejudice—written plea informed Mull; he got less than max sentence; no complete failure | For Mull; failure to orally advise at plea requires vacating pleas |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2020) (outlines three-part inquiry for reviewing the validity of a guilty plea under Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 (Ohio 2018) (trial court must inform defendant on postrelease control at plea hearing of court’s authority to impose additional consecutive prison sanction)