State v. Schillinger
2018 Ohio 3966
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Eric R. Schillinger was indicted on felonious assault (1st degree), failure to comply with police (3rd), aggravated possession of drugs (5th), and possession of drug abuse instruments (misdemeanor); he initially pled not guilty.
- He pleaded guilty to an amended felonious assault (reduced to 2nd degree) and to failure to comply; the trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and accepted the plea.
- The court imposed consecutive prison terms: 2 years on Count One and 3 years (36 months) on Count Two, for an aggregate 5-year sentence; mandatory post-release control of 3 years was announced.
- The court also ordered a $300 fine, court costs, an unspecified assessment/recoupment fee, allowed ten years to pay the fine, and offered community work-service as an alternative.
- Schillinger appealed raising five assignments of error challenging the plea colloquy (Crim.R. 11), post-release control notifications, failure to advise of drug-testing prohibition (R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f)), and imposition of assessment/recoupment fees and fines without consideration of ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(C) plea advisement adequacy | State: court complied with Crim.R.11 by advising rights and confirming understanding | Schillinger: court failed to inquire into his individual ability to understand consequences | Court: plea colloquy satisfied strict compliance; plea valid |
| Post-release control notifications | State: court gave required oral advisements and incorporated them into the entry | Schillinger: court failed to notify him of R.C. 2929.141(A) consequences for new felonies while on PRC | Court: no error; Gordon (Ohio Sup. Ct.) holds initial sentencing need not include R.C.2929.141(A) provisions; Grimes requirements met |
| R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(f) drug-testing/ingestion advisement | State: statute requires the court to require testing and prohibition, not to give an express advisement to benefit defendant | Schillinger: court erred by not informing him he may not ingest/inject drugs and will be subject to random tests | Court: no reversible error; statute not intended to create a substantive right to that advisement; subsection later removed by legislature |
| Imposition of assessment/recoupment fees and consideration of ability to pay | State: court imposed small fine, allowed long payment period and work-off alternative, demonstrating consideration of ability to pay | Schillinger: court lacked statutory authority to order assessment/recoupment and failed to consider ability to pay before fines/costs | Court: no plain error shown; record does not show a sum certain for unspecified fees; trial court’s statements permit inference it considered ability to pay; costs are mandatory unless waived |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (explains Crim.R. 11 strict compliance standard for waiver of constitutional rights)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (defines plain error standard under Crim.R. 52(B))
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (holding that strict compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) provisions related to constitutional waiver is required)
- State v. Grimes, 151 Ohio St.3d 19 (sets required content of sentencing entry when post-release control is orally advised)