State v. Roberts
2016 Ohio 7400
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Rodney Roberts pleaded guilty to murder (amended from aggravated murder) with a consecutive three-year firearm specification after a plea bargain; remaining counts were nolled.
- Sentenced to 15 years to life on murder plus 3 years on the firearm spec (18 years to parole eligibility); court also imposed a $20,000 fine.
- Roberts appealed, raising three claims: (1) plea was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent; (2) court abused discretion by not considering his ability to pay the $20,000 fine; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel caused an involuntary plea.
- At the plea colloquy the prosecutor and defense counsel described the plea (murder + 3-year gun spec = 18-to-life parole eligibility), the court asked Roberts to confirm his guilty plea, and Roberts stated he understood and pled guilty.
- Roberts argued post-appeal that he misunderstood the gun specification, believed he was pleading on a self-defense theory, and was not properly advised about parole (citing State v. Clark).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Roberts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of plea under Crim.R. 11 | Court substantially complied; plea was knowing and voluntary; prosecutor and counsel accurately explained plea and penalty | Plea not knowing/voluntary: didn’t understand charge, didn’t plead to gun spec, misunderstood parole and consequences | Affirmed — plea was valid; Roberts did plead to the 3-year gun spec and record shows substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11 |
| Accuracy of parole/postrelease advisement | Court’s advisements did not create the Clark hybrid error; defense clarified postrelease control did not apply and parole was discretionary | Plea invalid because court failed to inform him parole, if granted, could be lifetime and thus misinformed him (relying on Clark) | Affirmed — advisements distinguishable from Clark; no misinformation permeated the record and no prejudice shown |
| Imposition of $20,000 fine (ability to pay) | Mandatory fines need not be waived absent affidavit/claim of indigency; Roberts filed no affidavit and made no objection at sentencing | Court abused discretion by failing to consider ability to pay before imposing the fine | Affirmed — Roberts waived objection by not raising indigency; court did not abuse discretion |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s performance was competent; record shows counsel confirmed plea terms and Roberts’ satisfaction | Counsel was deficient for failing to advise about parole/fine/self-defense which led to an involuntary plea | Affirmed — ineffective-assistance claim rejected under Strickland; defendant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (Crim.R. 11 purpose and meaningful dialogue requirement)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (de novo review of plea colloquy)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (distinguishes constitutional and nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 requirements; prejudice test)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Caplinger, 105 Ohio App.3d 567 (1995) (appreciation of plea effects evidences substantial compliance)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (trial court misinformation about postrelease control vs. parole can invalidate plea when misinformation permeates record)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Brooks, 25 Ohio St.3d 144 (1986) (Ohio application of Strickland)
- State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (1985) (presumption of competent counsel)
- State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (1998) (indigency affidavit and burden to show inability to pay fines)