State v. Pope
2014 Ohio 3212
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Phillip L. Pope was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated murder, murder, felonious assault, firearm specifications, and other weapons offenses; he initially pleaded not guilty.
- In February 2013 Pope changed his plea to guilty to murder (R.C. 2903.02(A)), an unclassified felony, and to an associated firearm specification; remaining counts were dismissed.
- At the plea hearing the trial court told Pope he would be subject to a mandatory five-year term of postrelease control if released by the Adult Parole Authority, and described standard PRC sanctions and revocation terms.
- Pope was sentenced to 15 years to life for murder, consecutive 3 years for the firearm specification (parole eligibility after 18 years), and the sentencing entry included a five-year mandatory postrelease control term.
- Pope filed delayed appeals raising: (1) plea was not knowingly/voluntarily entered because of erroneous PRC advice; (2) trial court erred by imposing PRC on an unclassified felony; and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to object to PRC at sentencing.
- The court affirmed the plea (no demonstrated prejudice), sustained the challenge to PRC as void for an unclassified felony, and found the ineffective-assistance claim moot; the case was remanded for correction of the sentencing entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pope) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing/voluntary under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(A) given court's incorrect PRC advice | Court partially complied with Crim.R. 11 and Pope failed to show prejudice or that he would have gone to trial | Court misinformed Pope about postrelease control for an unclassified felony, so plea was not knowing and voluntary | Court: Plea valid — partial noncompliance did not prejudice Pope; plea affirmed |
| Whether trial court could impose mandatory postrelease control on murder (unclassified felony) | PRC could be imposed as stated at sentencing | Pope: R.C. 2967.28 bars PRC on unclassified felonies like murder | Court: PRC cannot be imposed on unclassified felonies; the PRC portion of the sentence is void; remand to correct entry |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to PRC at sentencing | State did not defend counsel’s omission as harmless in light of statutory bar | Pope: Counsel rendered deficient performance by not objecting to an improper PRC term | Court: Moot after resolving PRC error; did not decide ineffective-assistance claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2008) (trial-court misinformation about postrelease control/parole can render plea involuntary)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Supreme Court of Ohio 1996) (Crim.R. 11 requires plea be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Supreme Court of Ohio 1990) (substantial-compliance standard for nonconstitutional plea advisements)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2004) (literal compliance with Crim.R. 11 preferred; partial compliance analysis)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2010) (sentencing entry that incorrectly imposes postrelease control is void)