State v. Pluhar
2015 Ohio 3344
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Timothy Pluhar was indicted for multiple sex-related offenses arising from incidents in 1998–1999 involving three adult women; a 13-count indictment was filed in 2014.
- On August 6, 2014 Pluhar pleaded guilty to one count of rape, two counts of sexual battery, and one count of tampering with evidence; several counts and SVP specifications were dismissed as part of the plea deal.
- At sentencing (Sept. 8, 2014) the trial court imposed an aggregate 18-year term (10 years for rape; two consecutive 48-month terms for sexual battery; 3 years for tampering), a $5,000 fine, and costs; postrelease control was imposed.
- The trial court held a sexual-offender-classification hearing and designated Pluhar a sexual predator under former R.C. Chapter 2950 (Megan’s Law).
- Pluhar appealed, asserting (1) his guilty plea was invalid because the court failed to advise him about Megan’s Law reporting consequences; (2) individual sentences (including a maximum term for rape and near-maximum terms for sexual battery) were improper; (3) consecutive sentences were improper; and (4) sexual-predator classification was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of plea re: Megan’s Law notification | State: court not required to inform defendant of collateral civil reporting requirements before accepting plea | Pluhar: plea involuntary/invalid because court failed to explain Megan’s Law reporting consequences (affecting maximum penalty understanding) | Court: Megan’s Law reporting requirements are collateral; trial court not required to advise before plea; plea upheld |
| Legality/length of individual sentences | State: sentences within statutory range and properly grounded in R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 considerations | Pluhar: court misapplied sentencing factors; maximum/near-maximum terms unjustified | Court: sentencing record shows consideration of relevant factors; sentences not clearly and convincingly contrary to law |
| Consecutive sentences | State: court made the statutory findings on record and in journal entry under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) | Pluhar: findings insufficient or unsupported by record | Court: explicit on-the-record findings supported by record and incorporated into entry; consecutive terms affirmed |
| Sexual-predator classification | State: clear and convincing evidence (multiple victims, nature of offenses, alcohol/impaired victims, lack of remorse) supports classification | Pluhar: record does not support predator factors; some findings (e.g., drugging, cruelty) unsupported | Court: classification is civil and reviewed for manifest weight; findings supported by competent, credible evidence; classification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (Megan’s Law reporting requirements are remedial/collateral)
- State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7 (sex-offender classification collateral consequence)
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (Adam Walsh Act changes rendered new requirements punitive)
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (same—effect of legislative changes on punitive/civil analysis)
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (standard of review for sex-offender classification; civil manifest-weight standard)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight standard)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (clarifying application of manifest-weight standard)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (consecutive-sentence findings must be on the record and in journal entry)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Crim.R. 11 substantial vs strict compliance guidance)