State v. Scott
2021 Ohio 2676
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Phillip Scott was indicted for multiple offenses arising from the May 26, 2019 shooting death of Carlos Mitchell; charges included murder, having weapons while under disability, menacing by stalking, criminal damaging, and receiving stolen property.
- Scott pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea deal that amended aggravated murder to murder and preserved several counts and firearm specifications; the trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and accepted the pleas.
- The court denied defense counsel’s request for a continuance and proceeded immediately to sentencing, imposing an aggregate sentence of 20 years to life and orally waiving fines, fees, and court costs.
- The written sentencing journal entry accurately stated the plea and prison terms but contained an internal inconsistency: it both stated costs were waived and also entered judgment for court costs.
- Scott appealed raising four assignments of error (plea validity under Ramos/unanimity; failure to make consecutive-sentence findings on the record; failure to consider sentencing principles and denial of continuance; and erroneous imposition of court costs). The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences but remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry to correct the court-costs inconsistency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Scott’s guilty plea was knowing/voluntary because court did not inform him jury verdict must be unanimous (post-Ramos). | State: Ramos does not change Crim.R. 11 obligations in Ohio; court adequately advised waiver of jury trial and other rights. | Scott: Plea involuntary because court failed to inform him of the constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict as required after Ramos. | Court: Overruled — trial court strictly complied with Crim.R.11; Ramos did not create a new Ohio notice requirement. |
| 2. Whether the trial court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences on the record. | State: Record and oral pronouncement contain the necessary findings; sentence lawful. | Scott: Court failed to make statutory consecutive-sentence findings on the record. | Court: Overruled — court’s oral statements satisfied the required analysis and findings and record supports them. |
| 3. Whether court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 purposes and factors and erred by denying a continuance for mitigation. | State: Court considered required factors, stated so in journal entry, and had sufficient information to proceed without continuance. | Scott: Court did not adequately consider seriousness/recidivism factors and prejudiced mitigation by denying continuance. | Court: Overruled — presumes consideration of factors; journal entry and record show compliance; denial of continuance not improper. |
| 4. Whether the journal entry’s imposition of court costs (after on-the-record waiver) was error and whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object or file indigency affidavit. | State: Initially joined remand; alternatively argued statutory pronouncement may require an entry; court can waive costs under statute. | Scott: Court waived costs on the record; the journal entry’s judgment for costs is inconsistent and must be corrected. | Court: Sustained in part — remanded for limited purpose to issue a nunc pro tunc entry to reflect waiver of court costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (Crim.R.11’s purpose is to ensure pleas are voluntary and informed)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (trial court must engage defendant personally under Crim.R.11)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (strict compliance required for constitutional advisements under Crim.R.11)
- Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) (Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (consecutive-sentence findings must be supported in the record and incorporated into the entry)
- State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 (2011) (court presumed to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12; no formulaic recitation required)