State v. Partee
2013 Ohio 908
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Scott Partee appealed from a conviction and sentence in a criminal case.
- Partee entered a written no-contest plea but did not receive the plea hearing required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2).
- The trial court failed to personally address Partee, ensure voluntariness, explain rights waived, or inform him of postrelease control consequences.
- The court’s minimal proceeding consisted solely of presenting the plea document, reading some facts, and a brief discussion with counsel, with no oath or acceptance of the plea.
- The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding the plea procedure violated Crim.R. 11 and constitutional rights.
- The court sustained the assignment of error about the plea proceedings and deemed other assignments moot under App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea proceeding complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). | Partee | Partee | No; plea proceeding deficient, requiring vacatur and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (requires substantial compliance with nonconstitutional provisions and strict compliance with constitutional provisions of Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (addressing postrelease-control advisement in plea proceedings)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (clarifies pleading rights and waiver considerations under Crim.R. 11)