State v. Russell
2018 Ohio 2571
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Jaytavion Russell, age 16 at the time of the offenses, was bound over from juvenile to adult court and pleaded guilty in Montgomery County Common Pleas to one count of failure to comply with a police order (third-degree felony); a related breaking-and-entering count was dismissed by the State.
- Plea agreement limited the prison exposure to no more than 24 months and included an agreement that Russell would pay restitution for the breaking-and-entering, but the parties did not agree on the restitution amount.
- At the plea hearing the trial court initially told Russell post-release control would be mandatory, then later said it was discretionary; Russell signed the plea form and pleaded guilty.
- At sentencing the court imposed an 18-month prison term, ordered restitution jointly and severally with a co-defendant, but did not announce a dollar amount in open court; the written judgment later set restitution at $2,500.
- Russell appealed, raising two issues: (1) the trial court erred in ordering restitution without announcing the amount at sentencing, and (2) his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because of the court’s misstatement about post-release control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by ordering restitution without announcing the amount at sentencing | State: amount was implied by the record/PSI and defendant did not object at sentencing | Russell: court failed to determine/announce amount in open court and denied him opportunity to object or request a hearing | Reversed as to restitution; failure to fix amount at sentencing was plain error and remand for resentencing on restitution only |
| Whether Russell’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary given the court’s misstatement that post-release control was discretionary | State: error is moot because Russell was released and not placed on post-release control; court’s misstatement did not prejudice Russell | Russell: misstatement of post-release control rendered plea invalid under Crim.R. 11 and R.C. 2929.19 | Overruled as to plea validity; court found only partial (not complete) noncompliance and no showing of prejudice, so plea stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (establishes counsel’s duty to file Anders brief when no non-frivolous issues exist)
- State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 2008) (trial courts must convey accurate information about post-release control; distinguishes partial vs. complete Crim.R. 11 noncompliance)
- State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance standard for non-constitutional Crim.R. 11 rights)
- State v. Sarkozy, 881 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 2008) (complete failure to inform about post-release control requires vacating plea)
- State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (defendant challenging nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 error must show prejudice)