State v. Servantes, 2023 Ohio 2029

Background

Connor A. Servantes was indicted in three Portage County cases for multiple burglaries, thefts, drug possession, receiving stolen property, identity fraud, and a failure-to-comply charge arising from incidents near Kent State University.
By plea agreement he pled guilty to 14 counts across the three cases, including: several third-degree burglaries, a third-degree failure-to-comply (R.C. 2921.331), fourth- and fifth-degree felonies, and one misdemeanor.
At the plea hearing the court recited maximum penalties for third- and fourth-degree felonies and the misdemeanor but omitted the maximum for fifth-degree felonies and did not tell Servantes that the failure-to-comply offense carries a statutorily mandatory consecutive prison term.
At sentencing the court interrupted Servantes during allocution but permitted further statements; the court imposed an aggregate seven-year prison term with some counts ordered consecutive.
On appeal Servantes argued (1) his pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because of Crim.R. 11 deficiencies (failure to advise of the mandatory consecutive sentence and omission of fifth-degree maximums) and (2) he was denied his right of allocution under Crim.R. 32.
The court vacated Servantes’ guilty pleas to the counts affected by the Crim.R. 11 omissions, affirmed that allocution was afforded, ordered correction of clerical omissions in the sentencing entry, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Servantes)	Held
Whether the trial court’s failure at plea colloquy to inform defendant that R.C. 2921.331(D) mandates consecutive service rendered the plea invalid	Trial court substantially complied; any omission was harmless and did not void the plea	Omission of statutorily-mandated consecutive service affected the maximum penalty and thus violated Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) — plea not knowingly/voluntarily made	Court: Failure to advise of mandatory consecutive sentence violated Crim.R. 11; no prejudice showing required; plea to failure-to-comply vacated
Whether omission of the maximum penalty for fifth-degree felonies at plea colloquy invalidated pleas to those counts	Any error was harmless because defendant signed plea forms and counsel was present; plea agreement remains enforceable	Complete failure to inform of maximum penalty for fifth-degree felonies is a Crim.R. 11(C)(2) defect that presumptively invalidates the plea	Court: Complete omission of fifth-degree maximums violated Crim.R. 11; no prejudice showing required; pleas to the fifth-degree counts vacated
Whether the trial court violated Crim.R. 32(A)(1) by interrupting defendant’s allocution	The interruption did not deny allocution because defendant was given opportunity to continue and defense counsel spoke in mitigation	Interruption cut off defendant’s final remarks and denied his right to personally address the court before sentence	Court: No denial of allocution — defendant spoke before and after interruption, had nothing further to say, and counsel had made mitigating remarks; allocution requirement satisfied

Key Cases Cited

State v. Dangler, 164 N.E.3d 286 (Ohio 2020) (explains when Crim.R. 11 noncompliance requires prejudice and when prejudice is excused)
State v. Barker, 953 N.E.2d 826 (Ohio 2011) (purpose and application of Crim.R. 11 plea procedures)
State v. Engle, 660 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered)
State v. Sarkozy, 881 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 2008) (complete failure to explain a mandatory element of the sentence invalidates plea)
State v. Campbell, 738 N.E.2d 1178 (Ohio 2000) (Crim.R. 32 allocution requirement and need for resentencing if not afforded)
State v. Green, 738 N.E.2d 1208 (Ohio 2000) (allocution is defendant’s last opportunity to address the court)
State v. Tancak, 191 N.E.3d 437 (Ohio 2022) (similar Crim.R. 11 issue—failure to advise mandatory consecutive term; matter of broader treatment pending before Ohio Supreme Court)