State v. Sankovitch
2017 Ohio 9248
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Michael Sankovitch was indicted on three third-degree felony counts (unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, intimidation of a witness, and sexual battery); he pled guilty to sexual battery and the other counts were dismissed.
- The plea agreement left the State silent on sentencing and Sankovitch waived his right to appeal the length of any sentence.
- At sentencing counsel sought a less-than-maximum term based on the presentence risk assessment; the court imposed the maximum three-year prison term for a third-degree felony of five years (note: court imposed five years) and five years of mandatory post-release control.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders/Toney no-merit brief seeking permission to withdraw; the court notified Sankovitch and gave him 30 days to file a pro se brief (he did not).
- The appellate court reviewed whether the plea and sentence presented any nonfrivolous issues under Crim.R. 11 and R.C. 2953.08 and concluded the plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11 and the sentence was within the statutory range.
- The court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the guilty plea knowing, voluntary, and intelligent under Crim.R. 11? | State: trial court strictly complied with constitutional advisements and substantially complied with nonconstitutional advisements; plea valid. | Sankovitch: (raised no pro se challenge) implicit contention that plea was proper to be reviewed. | Court held Crim.R. 11 requirements satisfied; plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent. |
| Did the trial court strictly comply with constitutional Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) rights advisement? | State: court strictly complied and defendant acknowledged waiving rights. | Sankovitch: no claim of inadequate advisement. | Court found strict compliance with constitutional advisements. |
| Did the court substantially comply with nonconstitutional advisements (nature/effect of plea, penalties, post-release control)? | State: substantial compliance shown; defendant understood effects and penalties including post-release control. | Sankovitch: no claim of prejudice or misunderstanding alleged. | Court found substantial compliance; no prejudicial effect shown. |
| Is there any nonfrivolous sentencing or plea issue to pursue (Anders/Toney review)? | State: sentence within statutory range; defendant waived appeal of sentence length; no meritorious grounds. | Sankovitch: did not file a pro se brief contesting issues. | Court concluded the appeal is frivolous, granted counsel leave to withdraw, and affirmed conviction and sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for appointed counsel to seek withdrawal when appeal is frivolous)
- Toney v. State, 23 Ohio App.2d 203 (Ohio Ct. App. 1970) (Ohio application of Anders requiring transmission of counsel’s motion to defendant)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (pleas must be voluntary to satisfy due process)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (totality of circumstances governs voluntariness of guilty pleas)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R. 11(C) colloquy requirements)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (strict compliance for constitutional advisements; substantial for nonconstitutional)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (definition of substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (strict compliance standard for constitutional advisements)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 2008) (plea must be knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently entered)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)