State v. Petitto
2011 Ohio 2391
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Anthony Petitto was indicted in Cuyahoga County on 48 counts, including rape and kidnapping, involving two victims.
- On March 3, 2010, under a plea agreement, Counts 5 and 30 were amended to gross sexual imposition; Petitto pled guilty to the amended counts, the remaining counts were nolled, and sentencing was postponed.
- A sentencing hearing on April 7, 2010 imposed four years on each amended count, consecutive for a total of eight years, with a mandatory five-year postrelease control term and Tier III sex offender designation.
- Petitto appealed, challenging Crim.R.11(C) compliance, postrelease-control consequences, understanding of the charges, court costs, statutory sentencing criteria, and ineffective assistance claims.
- The Eighth District reversed and remanded, finding partial Crim.R.11(C) noncompliance and emphasizing that ambiguous language about penalties could mislead the defendant; the plea was vacated and costs remanded for potential indigence waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea colloquy satisfied Crim.R.11(C) on the effect of the guilty plea | Petitto argues failure to inform of plea effect invalidates plea | State argues substantial compliance and no prejudice | Plea vacated; Crim.R.11(C) deficiency prejudicial |
| Whether the court informed about consequences of pleading guilty while on post-release control | Petitto asserts inadequate warning about post-release-control consequences | State contends informed sufficiently under applicable standards | Remanded; issue mooted by reversal on Issue 1 |
| Whether the court determined Petitto understood the nature of the amended charges | Petitto contends lack of understanding of the charges | State asserts sufficient inquiry under proceedings | Remanded; issue mooted by reversal on Issue 1 |
| Whether the court properly assessed costs in open court | Petitto argues costs were not properly addressed in court | State acknowledges error but argues limited remand resolves it | Remand for potential indigence waiver of costs |
| Whether the court considered statutory criteria in imposing more than the minimum sentence | Petitto contends improper sentencing without required findings | State maintains statutory criteria were satisfied | Remanded; issue mooted by reversal on Issue 1 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004-Ohio-4415) (nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11(C) duty requires substantial compliance)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (trial court must inform of effect of guilty plea)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (substantial compliance test for Crim.R. 11(C))
- State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (2007-Ohio-6093) (guilty plea requires informing defendant of rights and consequences)
- State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (1988) (consequences of consecutive sentences not always dispositive in Crim.R. 11 analysis)
- State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010-Ohio-954) (costs error; remand for indigence considerations)