State v. Richmond
2017 Ohio 2656
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Demetrius Richmond was charged in 2015 with multiple sexual-offense counts arising from two separate incidents in 1995 and 1996; plea proceedings concerned two rape counts to which he pled guilty.
- Richmond moved pro se to disqualify his court-appointed counsel alleging poor communication and dishonesty; the trial court held hearings and denied the motion.
- At the June 8, 2016 plea/sentencing hearing the court misstated one statutory maximum term (said 11 years where the correct maximum was 10 years for one count) but Richmond was sentenced to six years on each rape count, concurrent with each other and ordered consecutive to a separate 28-year sentence.
- The trial court classified Richmond as a sexual predator, did not include a computation of jail-time credit in its sentencing entry, and did not issue a separate ruling on Richmond’s preindictment-delay motion (which is treated as denied when final judgment is entered).
- Richmond appealed, raising errors about denial of counsel-change request, incorrect advice about maximum penalties, imposition of consecutive sentences without required findings, omission of jail-time credit in the record, and failure to rule on a motion to dismiss for preindictment delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Richmond) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion to disqualify appointed counsel | Court adequately inquired; counsel had acted, met client, pursued discovery; no showing of total breakdown | Counsel withheld discovery, lied, poor communication, requested new counsel | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether misstatement of maximum penalty vitiated voluntariness of plea | Misstatement was minor; Richmond suffered no prejudice because sentence imposed (6 years) was within correct maximum | Misstatement of maximum sentence denied due process and made plea unknowing | No plain or prejudicial error; plea upheld (substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11) |
| Whether imposition of sentence consecutive to prior sentence without statutory findings was proper | State concedes required consecutive-sentence findings were not made | Trial court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14/2929.41 findings before ordering consecutive service | Reversed remanded: court must reconsider consecutive sentence and make required findings on record |
| Whether sentencing entry erred by failing to compute and record jail-time credit | Court orally granted counsel’s request for credit but did not compute nor include it in entry | Trial court failed to include required computation of days served and credit in entry | Sustained: remanded for court to compute credit and issue nunc pro tunc entry |
| Whether motion to dismiss for preindictment delay should have been granted | Delay was justifiable or harmless; state need not justify unless defendant shows actual prejudice | Delay caused actual prejudice due to faded memories, missing evidence/witnesses | Denial affirmed: defendant failed to demonstrate specific actual prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Ballard v. State, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (purpose of Crim.R. 11 and information required for plea)
- Caplinger v. State, 105 Ohio App.3d 567 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (Crim.R.11 substantial-compliance analysis and prejudice requirement)
- Johnson v. State, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (Ohio 1988) (substantial-compliance standard for plea advisements)
- Clark v. State, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (appellant must show prejudicial effect to vacate plea for nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 errors)
- Jones v. State, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio 2016) (preindictment-delay framework: defendant must show actual prejudice before burden shifts to state)