State v. Russell
2011 Ohio 1738
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Anthony Russell pled guilty to attempted murder (Count 1), felonious assault (Count 4), and kidnapping with a non-release safety specification (Count 6), each involving a different victim.
- In exchange for the plea, the State dismissed one count of attempted murder, one count of kidnapping, one count of aggravated burglary, and four counts of felonious assault.
- Trial court sentenced Russell to consecutive maximum terms: 10 years for attempted murder, 8 years for felonious assault, and 10 years for kidnapping, for a total of 28 years.
- Russell appealed, challenging the voluntariness of the guilty pleas and the propriety of the resulting sentence.
- The court analyzed Crim.R. 11(C) compliance for pleas and R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 compliance for sentencing, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered? | Russell contends Crim.R. 11(C)(2) was not satisfied. | State failed to strictly inform on community control eligibility, plea effect, and rights waiver. | First assignment overruled; plea valid under substantial compliance. |
| Was the imposition of maximum, consecutive sentences proper under the sentencing statutes? | Court did not adequately consider 2929.11/2929.12 factors. | Sentence within statutory range; no abuse of discretion shown. | Second assignment overruled; sentence not contrary to law or an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Greene, 2006-Ohio-480 (Ohio App. 2006) (Crim.R. 11(C)(2) adequacy; non-constitutional rights may be substantially complied with)
- State v. Brown, 2007-Ohio-6675 (Ohio App. 2007) (informing effect of guilty plea; waiver of rights)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008-Ohio-3748) (strict compliance required for waivers of constitutional rights)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (non-constitutional rights require only substantial compliance)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (subjective understanding under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Miller, 2010-Ohio-4760 (Ohio 2010) (burden of showing prejudice in partial Crim.R. 11 compliance)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (two-step sentencing review; lawfulness first, then abuse of discretion)
- State v. Rice, 2011-Ohio-130 (Ohio App. 2011) (presumption of proper consideration of sentencing factors)
- State v. Bailey, 2004-Ohio-400 (Ohio App. 2004) (procedural adequacy in sentencing review)
- State v. Rutherford, 2009-Ohio-2071 (Ohio App. 2009) (presumption of proper factor consideration; rebuttal by clear inconsistency)
- State v. Gephart, Not provided as a current official reporter citation (1995) (illustrative case on sentencing factors (Gephart context))