2018 Ohio 1631
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In Sept. 2016 Parham shot a woman nine times during an attempted robbery; she survived and $175 was taken. Parham was indicted on attempted murder, two aggravated robberies, and two felonious assaults, each with firearm specifications.
- In June 2017 Parham pleaded guilty to amended attempted aggravated robbery and felonious assault with a three-year firearm specification; remaining counts were nolled.
- The trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, accepted the pleas, and immediately sentenced Parham to concurrent eight-year terms on each offense, ordered consecutive service of the felonious-assault eight-year term and the three-year firearm spec, for a total of 11 years.
- On appeal Parham raised four assignments of error: (1) plea not knowing/understanding the nature of felonious assault; (2) court failed to warn he could receive a greater sentence than any sentencing recommendation; (3) ineffective assistance for counsel not securing/recommending a promised five-year sentence and remaining silent at sentencing; (4) ineffective assistance for counsel not objecting to allegedly hostile bench remarks.
- The court reviewed Crim.R. 11 compliance (de novo for constitutional, substantial compliance for nonconstitutional advisements), examined the plea transcript only, and found the court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 and that no on-the-record sentencing agreement bound the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Parham) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the guilty plea knowing as to felonious assault? | Plea colloquy and prosecutor description satisfied Crim.R.11; no record of confusion. | Parham says plea statements at sentencing show he didn’t understand the mens rea element and court failed to explain elements. | Court: Substantial compliance with Crim.R.11; plea was knowing and voluntary. |
| 2. Must court warn defendant it is not bound by a sentencing recommendation? | No written/oral joint sentencing promise existed on the record; court had no duty to warn. | Parham contends counsel promised a five-year recommendation and court should have forewarned he could impose more. | Court: No on-the-record sentencing agreement; no duty to forewarn; defendant’s claim based on off-record statements not considered. |
| 3. Was counsel ineffective for failing to secure/recommend a five-year sentence and staying silent at sentencing? | State: Alleged promises are off the record; claims requiring facts outside the record must be raised by postconviction relief. | Parham: Counsel agreed to recommend five years and failed to do so, causing prejudice. | Court: Cannot review off-record allegations on direct appeal; ineffective-assistance claim not shown to have made plea unknowing/ involuntary. |
| 4. Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to hostile bench remarks? | Remarks did not rise to judicial bias nor invalidate plea; no prejudice shown that would have changed decision to plead. | Parham: Bench comments were hostile; counsel should have objected. | Court: Comments were not reversible; no showing defense objection would have changed plea; no ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (Crim.R.11 requires pleas be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (strict compliance required for constitutional advisements; substantial compliance for nonconstitutional)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (definition of substantial compliance with Crim.R.11)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (analysis when trial court partially or completely fails Crim.R.11 obligations)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (promises that induce pleas must be fulfilled)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1977) (breach of plea agreement may render plea involuntary)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (Strickland prejudice standard applied to guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Disposition: Affirmed (convictions and 11-year aggregate sentence upheld).