State v. Smith
2025 Ohio 990
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- William C. Smith, II was indicted on nine counts, including kidnapping, felonious assault, and domestic violence, following plea negotiations in Montgomery County, Ohio.
- Smith pleaded guilty to one count each of kidnapping (F1), felonious assault (F2), and domestic violence (F3); the remaining charges and the repeat-violent-offender specification were dismissed.
- The parties agreed to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years in prison.
- During the plea hearing, the trial judge orally explained the correct post-release control terms for each offense; Smith indicated he understood.
- Smith later appealed, challenging improper information on the written plea form and the trial court's failure to advise him of statutorily required rights regarding violent offender database registration.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Incorrect post-release control term on plea form | The plea form misstated the post-release control term, so his domestic violence plea was not knowing/voluntary and should be vacated. | The oral explanation at the plea hearing was correct; the written form error caused no prejudice, so the plea should stand. | Written error alone did not prejudice Smith; plea stands. |
| Failure to give violent offender database advisements | Smith was not informed, before sentencing, of his right to rebut the presumption to enroll in the violent offender database; this advisory failure mandates vacating that portion of the judgment. | The State conceded this error, agreeing that statutory advisements were omitted. | Judgment requiring enrollment reversed; remanded for proper advisement and opportunity to rebut. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (2020) (explains when prejudice must be shown for a Crim.R. 11 error to warrant vacating a plea)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (due process requires that guilty pleas be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (when prejudice from a plea advisement error must be shown)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (trial court's obligations under Crim.R. 11 during felony pleas)