State v. Semenchuk
2015 Ohio 5408
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant George Semenchuk arrested after allegedly stealing gasoline and driving erratically; officers observed signs of intoxication.
- Pleaded guilty to felony OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), third-degree felony), attempted assault on an officer, criminal trespass, and petty theft.
- Trial court imposed an aggregate five-year prison term, community-control sanctions, and a $1,350 fine.
- On appeal, Semenchuk challenged (1) the legality of the five-year OVI term, (2) voluntariness/knowing nature of his plea, (3) whether a presentence investigation (PSI) was considered before community control, and (4) whether the court considered his ability to pay the fine.
- Court concluded the five-year sentence on the OVI count exceeded the lawful maximum absent the R.C. 2941.1413 specification, vacated that sentence, and remanded for resentencing on the OVI count only.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Semenchuk's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a third-degree felony OVI (R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(e)) without the R.C. 2941.1413 specification authorizes a up-to-five-year prison term | Statutory scheme (and some district decisions) supports applying R.C. 2929.13(G)(2) and R.C. 4511.19 to permit up to five years | Maximum for third-degree felony OVI without the specification is three years (with 60-day mandatory portion) | Vacated five-year OVI term; held max aggregate is three years with a mandatory 60-day portion; remand for resentencing on OVI count only |
| Whether plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered | Trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11; plea valid | Trial court failed to explain effect of plea; plea not knowing/voluntary | Court found partial compliance and no claim of prejudice; plea upheld |
| Whether trial court violated R.C. 2951.03(A)(1) by imposing community control without a PSI | Court relied on existing PSI from 2007 OVI conviction and argued statute requires consideration of a PSI (not necessarily a new one) | Court failed to order a new PSI before community control | Held no error: consideration of the earlier PSI satisfied R.C. 2951.03(A)(1) |
| Whether trial court violated R.C. 2929.18 by imposing $1,350 fine without considering ability to pay | Fine mandated by R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(e) and is imposed "in all cases, notwithstanding section 2929.18" | Court should have considered ability to pay under R.C. 2929.18(A)(2) | Held R.C. 2929.18 does not apply because the OVI statute mandates the fine; claim disregarded on reconsideration when advanced as a constitutional argument |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (Crim.R. 11: substantial compliance for nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (defendant must show prejudice when pleading challenge alleges lack of substantial Crim.R. 11 compliance)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (plea-withdrawal standards; prejudice requirement)