2019 Ohio 881
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Michael R. Patterson, serving a prison term at Noble Correctional Institution, was indicted for one count of assault on a corrections officer (third-degree felony) after allegedly placing an officer in a choke hold.
- Patterson pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement; the trial court accepted the plea and immediately sentenced him to 24 months, to run consecutively to his existing sentence.
- A written journal entry (Feb. 1, 2018) memorialized the plea and sentence; Patterson filed for a delayed appeal which this court allowed.
- On appeal Patterson challenged (1) the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy as deficient (constitutional advisement re: burden of proof and erroneous advice about post-release control) and (2) the imposition of a consecutive sentence without the statutorily required findings.
- The Seventh District found the trial court did not strictly comply with Crim.R. 11 regarding the right to have the State prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the transcript misadvised that post-release control was discretionary.
- The court also found the trial court imposed a consecutive sentence to Patterson’s existing term without making the required statutory findings, rendering the sentence contrary to law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11 (constitutional advisements) | State relied on the plea hearing and journal entry as sufficient | Patterson argued the court failed to advise he had the right to have the State prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Court held the trial court failed strict compliance — omitted the explicit beyond-a-reasonable-doubt advisement; plea vacated |
| Whether the plea colloquy substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 (non-constitutional advisements re: post-release control) | State pointed to journal entry and argued substantial compliance | Patterson argued transcript incorrectly stated post-release control was discretionary rather than mandatory for his offense | Court held the transcript showed improper advisement and no adequate record of substantial compliance; error sustained |
| Whether the consecutive sentence was lawful without specified findings | State imposed consecutive term to run after existing sentence | Patterson argued consecutive imposition required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings which were not made | Court held consecutive sentence lacked the required findings and was contrary to law; sentencing reversed |
| Remedy after Crim.R. 11 and sentencing errors | State sought to uphold plea and sentence or correct by remand | Patterson sought vacatur of plea and remand for further proceedings | Court vacated guilty plea, reversed judgment, and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (explains strict compliance requirement for constitutional Crim.R. 11 advisements and substantial compliance for nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (defines substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 423 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 2008) (post-release control is a nonconstitutional advisement under Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard of review for felony-sentencing appeals; appellate correction only if record lacks statutory findings or sentence contrary to law)