State v. Nelson
2016 Ohio 5131
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Pedro F. Nelson was charged in two consolidated Cuyahoga County cases with drug offenses: trafficking (first-degree, amended), possession (fifth-degree), and related counts/specifications.
- Nelson pleaded guilty in CR-13-580784 to amended trafficking (1st deg.) with forfeiture; other counts and a major-drug-offender specification were nolled. He pleaded guilty in CR-14-584735 to drug possession (5th deg.).
- At the sentencing hearing the court imposed an agreed 4-year term in CR-13-580784, a mandatory $10,000 fine, and forfeitures; it also imposed 6 months in CR-14-584735 to run concurrently with the 4-year term.
- The court’s subsequent journal entry mistakenly recorded a 12-month term for CR-14-584735 (contrary to the oral pronouncement); the state conceded the discrepancy.
- Nelson appealed, arguing (1) the journal entry did not reflect the announced sentence and (2) his guilty pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variance between oral sentence and journal entry | State: journal entry contains clerical error and should be corrected | Nelson: journal entry imposes 12 months though court announced 6 months concurrent; this is error | Court: Remanded for nunc pro tunc correction to reflect 6 months concurrent (Crim.R. 36) |
| Validity of guilty plea (knowing, intelligent, voluntary) | State: plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11; defendant understood rights waived | Nelson: court failed to inquire into education/mental capacity and possible drug influence; plea therefore invalid | Court: Plea was valid; court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2); no evidence of incompetence or intoxication; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Ohio, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- Veney v. Ohio, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (strict compliance required for waiver of constitutional rights; substantial compliance for nonconstitutional matters)
- Carter v. Ohio, 60 Ohio St.2d 34 (1978) (substantial compliance standard — defendant must understand implications of plea)
- Clark v. Ohio, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (prejudice test for Crim.R. 11 nonconstitutional errors — whether defendant would have pleaded otherwise)