State v. Reeder
2014 Ohio 2233
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Reeder was indicted on one count of rape and one count of sexual battery in Butler County, Ohio.
- He pled guilty to one count of rape; the sexual battery charge was merged.
- The trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy confirming the plea was voluntary and knowing.
- The State presented the plea facts and the defendant admitted the truth of those facts.
- At sentencing, Reeder received a nine-year prison term, Tier III sex offender designation, and five years of mandatory post-release control; court costs were imposed.
- A post-sentence motion to withdraw the plea was denied after a hearing and the court journalized the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the guilty plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary? | Reeder relied on promised sentence; plea invalid without understanding | Record shows proper Crim.R. 11 compliance; no promise invalidating plea | Plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. |
| Did the court's handling of the promised sentence require withdrawing the plea? | Promised range induced plea; withdrawal should be allowed | No manifest injustice; court properly denied withdrawal | No abuse of discretion; withdrawal denied. |
| Was counsel ineffective for advising a promised sentence and failing to ensure it? | Counsel's advisement violated Strickland; prejudiced outcome | Plea was knowingly entered; any promise not proven; no prejudice | Appellant precluded from alleging ineffective assistance. |
| Did the court properly impose court costs given statutory changes? | Notification on penalties needed for potential community service | Statute allows not notifying; court could still order community service | No error; notification requirements were satisfied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ackley, 2014-Ohio-876 (12th Dist. 2014) (plea must be knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily accepted under Crim.R. 11(C)(2))
- State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200 (Ohio 2008) (strict vs. substantial compliance for Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c))
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional notifications)
- State v. Butcher, 2013-Ohio-3081 (12th Dist. 2013) (sex-offender notification not require reviewing every restriction to substantially comply)
- State v. Neeley, 2009-Ohio-2337 (12th Dist. 2009) (guilty plea waiver of ineffective assistance claim unless plea not knowing/voluntary)
- State v. Spates, 64 Ohio St.3d 269 (1992) (precludes ineffective assistance claims when plea is knowing/voluntary)