2022 Ohio 3845
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Michael Shade entered into a global plea: guilty to theft in 2020-CR-1045 and guilty to failure to comply and having weapons while under disability in 2021-CR-1731; other counts were dismissed and the parties agreed to a recommended prison cap of 24 months.
- At the plea hearing the court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, advised Shade of constitutional rights and possible penalties, and allowed a brief furlough to visit his dying mother with an explicit warning that failing to return could void the plea agreement.
- The court did not specifically inform Shade that R.C. 2921.331(D) requires any prison term for failure to comply to be served consecutively to other prison terms.
- Shade failed to appear for sentencing (a capias issued); he was later arrested, attempted to present forged documents, and the court proceeded to sentence him.
- The court imposed consecutive sentences: 12 months (theft) + 36 months (failure to comply) + 36 months (weapons under disability) = 84 months. Shade appealed, arguing his plea was not knowing/voluntary because the court failed to advise him of the mandatory consecutive nature of the failure-to-comply sentence.
Issues:
| Issue | State's Argument | Shade's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shade's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary when the trial court did not tell him that R.C. 2921.331(D) requires consecutive sentences if prison is imposed | Trial court complied with Crim.R.11 for constitutional rights and substantially complied for nonconstitutional matters; no requirement to advise about consecutive sentencing unless it was a guaranteed consequence at plea entry; Shade shows no prejudice | The court failed to inform Shade that a failure-to-comply prison term must be served consecutively, so his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily | Affirmed. The court need not advise about mandatory consecutive sentencing absent a "foregone conclusion" at the time of the plea; Shade failed to show prejudice and his assignment of error is overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dangler, 164 N.E.3d 286 (Ohio 2020) (Crim.R.11 requires the trial court to personally inform defendant of rights and consequences to create an adequate record)
- State v. Stone, 331 N.E.2d 411 (Ohio 1975) (explaining purpose of Crim.R.11 colloquy)
- State v. Johnson, 532 N.E.2d 1295 (Ohio 1988) (Crim.R.11 does not require advising about consecutive sentencing generally)
- State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (defendant must show prejudice to vacate plea for failure to substantially comply with nonconstitutional notifications)
- State v. Easter, 74 N.E.3d 760 (Ohio 2016) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 notifications)
- State v. Perdue, 185 N.E.3d 683 (Ohio 2022) (reaffirming strict compliance for constitutional advisements under Crim.R.11)