State v. Stowes, 2013 Ohio 2996

Defendant Antonio Stowes (17 at time of offenses, 18 at sentencing) was indicted for two separate December 2011 armed robberies, each involving three victims; he pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a three-year firearm specification for each incident.
Plea was entered June 13, 2012; sentencing occurred July 10, 2012. Victim impact statements and testimony occurred; defense presented mitigation.
At the plea hearing the court warned that the defendant “might also have to pay court costs,” and defendant acknowledged awareness. The plea did not include a specific admonition about reimbursement for the cost of confinement.
At sentencing the court imposed consecutive six-year terms on each aggravated robbery count, citing Stowes’s extensive juvenile delinquency history and stating it “strayed drastically” from guidelines for that reason.
On appeal Stowes challenged (1) whether his guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the court did not explicitly advise he could be ordered to reimburse confinement costs, and (2) whether the trial court lawfully imposed consecutive sentences without making the statutory findings in R.C. 2929.14(C)(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea was knowing and voluntary because court failed to advise of possible reimbursement for cost of confinement	State: court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C); it advised of "court costs" generally and defendant acknowledged awareness	Stowes: failure to warn about reimbursement for confinement cost rendered plea not knowing, intelligent, voluntary	Court held plea was knowingly, intelligently, voluntary; substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) as to nonconstitutional advisory about court costs.
Whether consecutive sentences were lawful without explicit R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings	State: sentencing justified by defendant’s juvenile delinquency history and need to protect public/punish	Stowes: trial court failed to make the statutorily required findings, especially that consecutive terms are not disproportionate to conduct/danger posed	Court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to make the required finding that consecutive sentences were not disproportionate, so sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (Crim.R. 11 compliance standard and review)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (purpose of Crim.R. 11 to ensure voluntary, intelligent pleas)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional admonitions)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (prejudice test when court partially complies with Crim.R. 11)
State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76 (2010) (court costs characterized as civil in nature, not part of punishment)
State v. Jones, 93 Ohio St.3d 391 (2001) (consecutive sentence findings are distinct and required)