State v. Spencer
2013 Ohio 137
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Spencer was convicted in two consolidated Hardin County cases: possession of heroin (case 20112079) and trafficking in heroin (case 20112266), with consecutive prison terms ultimately imposed.
- Plea agreement: Spencer pleaded guilty to possession of heroin and trafficking in heroin; the state dismissed two counts of complicity to trafficking in heroin and jointly recommended three years of community control.
- Sentencing: The trial court refused the joint sentence and sentenced Spencer to 17 months for possession and 11 months for trafficking, to be served consecutively.
- Pre-sentence investigation: Spencer failed to appear for her pre-sentence interview, despite encouragement by the court.
- Appeal: Spencer challenges (a) the sentencing decision, arguing improper consideration of sentencing factors, and (b) the voluntariness/validity of her Crim.R. 11 guilty pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court abuse discretion in deviating from the joint sentence? | Spencer argues the court failed to properly apply sentencing factors and to honor the joint recommendation. | State contends the court may reject a joint recommendation and must consider statutory factors when imposing sentence. | No reversible error; sentence within statutory ranges and properly supported by factors. |
| Was Spencer's plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made under Crim.R. 11? | Spencer claims confusion and medication impaired understanding, rendering the plea involuntary. | State argues Crim.R. 11 dialogue was meaningful and Spencer knowingly waived rights. | Plea accepted with valid Crim.R. 11 colloquy; knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010-Ohio-1) (trial court may reject plea agreement and is not bound by jointly recommended sentence)
- State ex rel. Duran v. Kelsey, 106 Ohio St.3d 58 (2005-Ohio-3674) (court may impose greater sentence than recommended with proper warnings)
- State v. Buchanan, 154 Ohio App.3d 250 (2003-Ohio-4772) (discretion to impose sentence beyond plea-proffered recommendation)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (Crim.R. 11 requires meaningful dialogue to ensure knowing and voluntary plea)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (Crim.R. 11 dialogue must reasonably apprise rights being waived)
- State v. Calvillo, 76 Ohio App.3d 714 (1991) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for voluntariness of plea)
- State v. Carter, 60 Ohio St.2d 34 (1979) (underpinning Crim.R. 11 duty to ensure understanding of charges)
- State v. Padgett, 67 Ohio App.3d 332 (1990) (Crim.R. 11 requires informed acknowledgment of guilt and rights)
- State v. Daughenbaugh, 3d Dist. No. 16-07-07 (2007-Ohio-5774) (appellate review of sentencing under R.C. 2953.08)