State v. Price
2014 Ohio 4696
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Maurice T. Price was convicted in Franklin County of attempted aggravated burglary with a three-year firearm specification and ten counts of aggravated robbery with eight three-year firearm specifications, arising from four robberies on three dates.
- First incident occurred December 30, 2011, where Price, armed with a knife, robbed a victim in a store parking lot.
- Second incident on July 22, 2012 involved Price's brother Anthony Price robbing Red Skye; investigation showed Price helped plan and knew a new safe location.
- Third and fourth incidents on August 26, 2012 involved Price and his brothers robbing Noodles & Company and Chipotle, with armed intimidation of victims.
- A Franklin County Grand Jury indicted Price in three cases (12CR-4512, 13CR-3718, 13CR-4319); pleas were entered in some cases and sentencing consolidated on November 25, 2013, totaling 22 years, with some firearm specifications mandated; a nunc pro tunc entry was later sought to correct the sentencing entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consecutive sentences and required findings under 2929.14(C)(4) | State argues proper findings can be discerned from record; record supports consecutive terms | Price argues court failed to make statutory findings to support consecutive sentences | Overruled; findings discernible on record; remanded for nunc pro tunc entry to reflect record findings |
| Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) misstatement about firearm specifications | Price argues misstatement invalidated knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea | Court substantial compliance; maximum penalty understood by Price | Overruled; plea held to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary |
| Knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entering pleas given pending charges | State allegedly induced plea without informing of pending indictments | Plea valid; no prejudice shown; counsel informed Price of possible charges | Overruled; pleas valid; no prejudice shown; arguments treated as prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance rather than trial court error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014-Ohio-3177) (consecutive sentences; need not recite exact statutory language if findings on record exist; clerical entry may be corrected)
- State v. Adams, 2014-Ohio-1809 (Ohio 2014) (requires analysis of findings and proportionality for consecutive sentences; court may rely on record even without exact statutory phrasing)
- State v. Phipps, 2014-Ohio-2905 (Ohio 2014) (substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11 where maximums misstated; plea valid if no prejudice)
- State v. Oliver, 2014-Ohio-3982 (Ohio 2014) (support for finding courses of conduct and great or unusual harm supporting consecutive terms)
- State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-6231 (Ohio 2011) (Crim.R.11 compliance and knowing plea analysis; prejudice standard)