State v. Small
2015 Ohio 3640
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Mykel L. Small entered guilty pleas in four consolidated Franklin County cases (drug possession, vehicular assault, failure to stop, OVI, attempted failure to appear, attempted identity fraud) and was sentenced on July 29, 2014.
- In No. 14AP-660 (vehicular assault, failure to stop, OVI) he received multiple jail terms and a lengthy driver's-license suspension; some sentences were ordered consecutive to other cases.
- In No. 14AP-661 (aggravated possession) he received an eight-year term and a $10,000 mandatory fine.
- Small raised multiple Crim.R. 11 (plea) challenges: alleged misinformation/confusion about penalties (license suspension), prosecutor breaching a sentencing-deference promise, and an unkept promise to allow withdrawal of a plea if consecutive sentences were required.
- He also challenged sentencing: sufficiency/form of consecutive-sentence findings, imposition/refusal to waive mandatory fines despite an affidavit of indigency, and a discrepancy between the oral sentencing disposition and the written entry for the OVI sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Small) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were guilty pleas in No. 14AP-660 knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily (Crim.R. 11)? | Court complied with Crim.R. 11; any minor advisement variance did not prejudice defendant. | Judge misadvised re: license-suspension length; plea agreement promessa (prosecutor silent) breached; judge promised option to withdraw plea if consecutive sentence required. | Pleas valid overall. Court found incorrect license-suspension advice but no prejudice; prosecutor did not breach; withdrawal promise was inapplicable because statutory predicate for consecutive service on failure-to-stop did not arise. |
| Were guilty pleas in No. 14AP-661 knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily (Crim.R. 11)? | Crim.R. 11 complied: court advised of right to separate juries, compulsory process, and firearm consequence (as to Ohio). | Court failed to advise of separate juries, right to call witnesses, and full (federal/interstate) firearm disability. | Plea valid. Court strictly complied with constitutional advisals; no duty to advise about firearm consequences in every other state. |
| Did trial court lawfully impose consecutive sentences and properly memorialize findings? | Consecutive service appropriate; trial court announced required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at sentencing. | Record insufficient to support consecutive findings; sentencing entry failed to include required findings. | Court’s oral findings satisfied Bonnell analysis and were supported by the record, but written sentencing entries omitted the findings — remand for corrected nunc pro tunc entry and for resentencing to resolve entry/oral-disposition discrepancies. |
| Were mandatory fines and OVI sentencing lawful given alleged indigency and concurrency issues? | Fines statutorily required (drug fine under R.C. 2929.18; OVI fine under R.C. 4511.19); court properly denied waiver after considering present/future ability to pay. Oral OVI disposition controlled; written entry conflicted. | Small filed affidavit of indigency and argued fines should be waived; OVI jail term improperly ordered consecutive in the entry. | Court did not abuse discretion in denying fine waivers (affidavit addressed counsel eligibility, not future ability to pay); OVI concurrency/concurrency discrepancy required remand for resentencing to reconcile oral pronouncement and written entry. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (addresses due-process requirement that pleas be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (trial court need only substantially comply with nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 requirements)
- Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (prosecutorial breach of plea agreement can render a plea involuntary)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (strict compliance required for Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) constitutional advisals)
- State v. Gipson, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (indigent affidavit does not automatically entitle defendant to waiver of mandatory fine)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (requirements for consecutive-sentence findings and when entries may be corrected)