State v. Short
2019 Ohio 3322
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Bradley Short was indicted on rape (1st-degree) and gross sexual imposition (3rd-degree); a superseding indictment added a sexually violent predator specification to the rape count.
- Under a written plea agreement Short withdrew his not-guilty pleas and pleaded guilty to an amended count of attempted rape (reduced to a 2nd-degree felony); the gross sexual imposition count was dismissed.
- The trial court refused to accept Short’s request to enter an Alford plea, after which Short — through consultation with counsel — proceeded to plead guilty without further protesting innocence in open court.
- The court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy; Short was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and classified as a Tier III sex offender; the SVP specification was later dismissed nunc pro tunc.
- Short appealed, arguing his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because the court refused to accept his Alford plea; the appellate court reviewed compliance with Crim.R. 11 and whether Short suffered prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to accept an Alford plea | State: Court may reject an Alford plea; no abuse where court finds acceptance inappropriate | Short: Court erred by refusing Alford plea, rendering subsequent guilty plea involuntary | Court: No abuse — defendant effectively withdrew Alford request and affirmed a plain guilty plea |
| Whether Short’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 | State: Trial court substantially/strictly complied with Crim.R. 11; plea was valid | Short: Refusal to accept Alford plea meant plea waiver of rights was not knowing/voluntary | Court: Crim.R. 11 requirements were met (strict for constitutional rights, substantial for other notifications); Short failed to show prejudice — plea valid |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (holds courts may accept guilty pleas coupled with claims of innocence when defendant intelligently concludes plea is in their interest)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (guilty pleas must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (distinguishes strict versus substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11 requirements)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (defendant challenging plea must show prejudice; test is whether plea would otherwise have been made)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (appellate review of Crim.R. 11 substantial-compliance under totality of circumstances)
- In re Kirby, 101 Ohio St.3d 312 (2004) (Alford does not confer a constitutional right to have such pleas accepted)
- State v. Piacella, 27 Ohio St.2d 92 (1971) (discusses nature and effect of Alford pleas)