State v. Richardson
2014 Ohio 2984
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Richardson was convicted by plea of involuntary manslaughter and aggravated robbery with accompanying firearm specifications, total 20 years' imprisonment.
- He sought appellate review via an Anders brief, and counsel moved to withdraw after independent case review.
- The sole potential assignment claimed the trial court failed to inform him of the consequences of his plea relative to federal probation.
- During plea, the State disclosed a recording in which Richardson urged his wife to influence a witness; spousal immunity issues were raised but resolved for trial.
- The plea colloquy required by Crim.R. 11 was conducted; Richardson admitted understanding rights and consequences, and the court explained postrelease control.
- At sentencing, the court imposed consecutive terms and noted five years of postrelease control; the appeal proceeded on the Crim.R. 11 issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim.R. 11(C)(2) was satisfied regarding plea consequences | Richardson | Richardson | Substantial compliance; plea valid |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (strict vs substantial compliance for nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Stewart, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977) (nonconstitutional rights subject to substantial compliance)
- State v. Carter, 396 N.E.2d 757 (1979) (totality of circumstances governs understanding of rights)
- State v. Griggs, 814 N.E.2d 51 (2004-Ohio-4415) (informing effect of plea is nonconstitutional and subject to substantial compliance)