State v. Norris
2017 Ohio 1570
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 26, 2014, Clarence P. Norris participated in a home invasion during which the intruders used a firearm and Taser, threatened the homeowner and two children, tased the homeowner, and stole property (including a gun).
- Norris was indicted on 11 felonies: aggravated burglary (1), aggravated robbery (3), kidnapping (6), and theft (1); ten counts carried firearm specifications (three-year mandatory terms).
- Norris pleaded guilty pursuant to a joint recommendation that he receive 10 years and agreed to cooperate/testify against co-defendants. The plea form and plea colloquy advised that firearm specifications carry three-year mandatory, consecutive sentences and that the court need not follow the recommendation.
- At sentencing the court merged some kidnapping counts, imposed concurrent terms on most underlying counts but imposed two mandatory consecutive three-year firearm specifications (for aggravated burglary and one kidnapping) for an aggregate 16-year sentence.
- Norris appealed, raising four assignments of error: (1) plea not knowing/voluntary because court failed to advise of required consecutive firearm terms; (2) statutory misapplication in imposing two mandatory firearm terms under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g); (3) court should have stopped the hearing/allowed plea withdrawal when plea bargain could not be honored; (4) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Norris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether guilty plea was knowing and voluntary given advice about consecutive firearm terms | Court substantially complied with Crim.R.11; plea colloquy and written plea form warned of mandatory consecutive firearm terms and that recommendation was not binding | Court failed to advise that at least two firearm specifications would mandatorily run consecutively, so plea was not fully informed | Court: Crim.R.11 substantially complied; plea entered knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily — overrules assignment 1 |
| 2. Whether court erred in imposing two mandatory consecutive firearm terms under R.C. 2929.14(B)(1)(g) | Statute permits imposing the two most serious firearm-specification terms when the defendant pleads guilty to two or more felonies including an enumerated offense; court may select which specifications to impose | Norris argued the statute only applies if the imposed firearm terms correspond to the enumerated offenses (e.g., aggravated robbery) and challenges the court’s statutory application | Court: Statute does not require the chosen specifications to be attached to the listed offenses; sentencing on two specifications was permitted — overrules assignment 2 |
| 3. Whether court should have suspended sentencing to allow plea withdrawal when plea agreement couldn’t be ``lived up to'' | State: Court informed defendant plea recommendation was non-binding; defendant had notice and did not seek to withdraw plea | Norris contends the sentencing hearing should have stopped once the State said it could not honor the plea recommendation | Court: No sua sponte duty to stop; defendant neither sought to withdraw nor indicated lack of understanding; no error — overrules assignment 3 |
| 4. Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to (a) correctly advise on merger of firearm specs, (b) object to plea colloquy, (c) move to withdraw plea at sentencing | State: Counsel presumption of competence; record shows court informed defendant of possible consecutive firearm terms and non-binding recommendation; no prejudice shown | Norris: Counsel’s mistakes prejudiced him and would have produced different outcome | Court: Counsel’s performance not shown to have caused prejudice under Strickland; defendant would not have obtained a different result — overrules assignment 4 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981) (Crim.R.11 substantial compliance framework)
- State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153, 524 N.E.2d 476 (1988) (licensed attorney is presumed competent)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136, 538 N.E.2d 373 (1989) (applying Strickland standard in Ohio)