2017 Ohio 5831
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On June 13, 2016 Jason Shontee admitted he shot and killed Robert Hildebrand after an argument; Shontee claimed he was angry and lost control and alleged Hildebrand threatened him with a "nail stick."
- Indictment charged two counts of murder (each with firearm and repeat violent offender (RVO) specifications), two counts of felonious assault (with specs), and having weapons while under disability (WUD).
- Pursuant to a plea agreement, Shontee pled by bill of information to voluntary manslaughter (first-degree felony) with a three-year firearm specification and an RVO specification, and to the indicted WUD count; remaining counts were dismissed.
- The parties agreed on a joint sentencing range of 15–21 years (11 years for manslaughter + 3 years firearm + 1–7 years RVO); restitution and post-release control were addressed.
- The trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 during the plea colloquy and ordered a PSI.
- The court sentenced Shontee to the top of the agreed range: 11 years (manslaughter) + 3 years (firearm) + 7 years (RVO) consecutive = 21 years aggregate; WUD sentence concurrent; post-release control imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance of counsel | State: counsel negotiated plea that avoided life exposure; no record-based showing of ineffective assistance | Shontee: counsel was ineffective (asserted in potential assignment) | Counsel was not ineffective; claim would be frivolous given admissions, witnesses, and favorable plea outcome |
| 2. Sentencing to maximum of agreed range | State: sentence is within the jointly-recommended 15–21 year range and thus not appealable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) | Shontee: trial court erred by imposing maximum (potential assignment) | Sentence affirmed; joint recommendation bars appellate review of a sentence within agreed range |
| 3. Crim.R. 11 compliance on plea acceptance | State: court scrupulously complied with Crim.R. 11, reviewed rights, penalties, and voluntariness | Shontee: trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 (potential assignment) | No Crim.R. 11 error; plea found knowing, voluntary, and supported by adequate colloquy |
| 4. Whether appeal is frivolous / requires Anders review | State: no non-frivolous issues exist after review of record | Shontee: (no pro se brief filed) | Court conducted Anders/Penson review and concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous; affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires court-appointed counsel to file brief identifying any arguable issues and permits independent court review when counsel seeks to withdraw)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (clarifies appellate court responsibilities in reviewing claims of frivolous appeals and Anders briefs)