State v. Shiley
2017 Ohio 9070
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Bambi L. Shiley was indicted on three counts of endangering children (felonies of the third degree); one count was corrected for a typographical code error before plea.
- Under a Crim.R. 11 plea agreement, Shiley pled guilty to one count; the State dismissed the remaining counts and recommended a 12‑month sentence.
- At the plea hearing the court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, advised Shiley of constitutional and nonconstitutional rights, and accepted the plea.
- The court sentenced Shiley to 12 months incarceration, credited 121 days served, ordered costs, and (erroneously) imposed a mandatory three‑year term of postrelease control.
- Appellate counsel filed a no‑merit (Anders/Toney) brief seeking leave to withdraw; Shiley did not file a pro se brief. The court independently reviewed the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of plea (Crim.R. 11 compliance) | State: court properly advised of constitutional and nonconstitutional rights and plea was valid | Shiley: (no pro se arguments raised) | Court held the plea colloquy complied (strict for constitutional, substantial for nonconstitutional); no appealable defect |
| Sentencing review (within statutory range & consideration of R.C. 2929.11/2929.12) | State: 12‑month term is within statutory limits and court considered sentencing statutes | Shiley: (no meritorious challenge raised) | Court held sentence was within statutory range and presumed to have considered relevant factors; no reversible error |
| Postrelease control notification (whether mandatory three years applied) | State: argued three‑year mandatory postrelease control applied (relying on pre‑amendment language) | Shiley: (implicit) statutory amendment limits mandatory PRC to offenses of violence; this case was neglect, not violent | Court held imposition of mandatory three‑year postrelease control was erroneous under the amended statute; sentencing vacated in part and remanded for correct PRC procedure |
| Counsel withdrawal (Anders/Toney brief) | State: counsel complied with Anders/Toney procedure and asked to withdraw | Shiley: did not file pro se response | Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw after independent review and affirmed convictions except for PRC error |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds appeal is frivolous)
- State v. Toney, 23 Ohio App.2d 203 (Ohio Ct. App. 1970) (local procedure implementing Anders for indigent appellants)
- State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (distinction between strict and substantial Crim.R. 11 compliance)
- State v. Marcum, 59 N.E.3d 1231 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)