2021 Ohio 2700
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- In March 2018 Simpson beat his father to death; he was originally charged in 2018 with murder and felonious assault.
- Defense and State negotiated a plea agreement: the 2018 charges would be dismissed without prejudice and Simpson would be charged in a 2020 bill of information with voluntary manslaughter, felonious assault, and tampering; Simpson agreed to plead no contest.
- On September 17, 2020 the trial court accepted Simpson’s no-contest pleas; Simpson was sentenced on September 24, 2020 to consecutive terms (10 years manslaughter + 5 years felonious assault) and a concurrent 36-month tampering term (aggregate 15 years).
- Simpson appealed, arguing (1) the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 (plea advisement) and (2) his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not advising him about appellate rights and not obtaining a final judgment entry in the dismissed 2018 case.
- Simpson submitted an unauthenticated document to support his claim that he thought he retained appellate/trial rights in the dismissed 2018 case; the State objected and the court refused to consider it.
- The appellate court found the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11, the dismissal of the 2018 case left no appealable order, counsel’s performance was not shown deficient or prejudicial, and it affirmed Simpson’s convictions.
Issues:
| Issue | State's Argument | Simpson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the trial court comply with Crim.R. 11 so Simpson’s plea was knowing and voluntary? | Court literally complied with Crim.R. 11; presumption plea was knowing/voluntary | He mistakenly believed he could still appeal/proceed to trial in the dismissed 2018 case; court failed to advise him he would waive that right | Court held the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11; plea was knowing and voluntary; affirmed |
| 2. Was there plain error or abuse in accepting the plea? | No plain error; literal compliance and no indicia of coercion | Failure to explain appellate consequences constitutes plain error | No plain error; dismissal of 2018 case left no final order to appeal; affirmed |
| 3. Was counsel ineffective under Strickland? | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; no prejudice shown | Counsel failed to inform him about losing appellate rights in the dismissed case and failed to obtain a final judgment entry | Strickland not satisfied: no deficient performance or prejudice shown; claim rejected |
| 4. Can the unauthenticated document be considered to rebut the plea colloquy? | Document is outside the record and inadmissible | Document shows his misunderstanding about appeal/trial rights | Court refused to consider the unauthenticated out-of-record document; plea colloquy controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (plea must be voluntary and knowing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91 (1955) (presumption that counsel’s performance is reasonable)
- State v. Bowen, 52 Ohio St.2d 27, 368 N.E.2d 843 (1977) (plea requires full understanding of consequences)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981) (trial court must advise defendant of specific rights when taking a plea)
- State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347, 71 N.E.3d 180 (2016) (reiterating Ballard/Crim.R. 11 advisements)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for Crim.R. 11)