2019 Ohio 1033
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant Keyonna Snell was indicted with co-defendants for a multi-jurisdictional "cash-cash" prepaid card scam involving Walmart stores; charges included engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (amended Count 1) and related counts.
- At trial, a Walmart asset-protection manager’s surveillance photos/videos played a central role; defense counsel initially objected that a particular August 13, 2016 video had not been produced before trial.
- To avoid appealable discovery issues, the state offered the defendants plea agreements to amended Count 1 (second-degree felony) with dismissal of remaining counts and a state recommendation of community control; defendants had to admit involvement by circling their images and promise to avoid Walmart stores in the continental U.S.; Snell pled guilty.
- At the originally scheduled sentencing date, Walmart provided additional photos suggesting possible post-plea Walmart appearances; the court reviewed but made no identifications and said it would not consider those photos for sentencing; Snell failed to appear for that hearing, was later arrested, and sentencing was continued.
- At the rescheduled sentencing, defense counsel acknowledged that, given Snell's criminal history and failure to appear, community control was unlikely; the state commented that a two-year sentence would be "de minimus" though it said it would recommend community control; the court sentenced Snell to five years' imprisonment.
- Snell appealed, raising (1) a discovery violation for late disclosure of the video and (2) breach of the plea agreement by the state (based on the later-provided photographs and prosecution comments).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether late disclosure of the August 13 surveillance video violated due process / discovery rights | State: video was not in possession of the State earlier; and disclosure did not prejudice defendant because it was inculpatory | Snell: late production deprived her of discovery rights and a fair trial | Waived by guilty plea; because Snell did not challenge the plea’s knowing and voluntary nature, any discovery error is forfeited |
| Whether the State breached the plea agreement (community-control recommendation and related terms) | State: forwarded recently received photos to defense promptly, investigated possible violations, and still expressed a recommendation; failure to appear by defendant constituted breach of the plea agreement | Snell: prosecution’s provision of photos and sentencing comments undermined the agreement to recommend community control | No breach. Court found defendant’s failure to appear and her criminal history made community control unlikely; prosecution’s conduct did not violate the plea agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (remedy for breach of plea agreement; prosecution obligations in plea bargains)
- State v. Bethel, 110 Ohio St.3d 416 (2006) (plea agreements are governed by contract law principles)