State v. Strimpel
2018 Ohio 1628
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Strimpel was charged with rape, kidnapping, and domestic violence; he pleaded guilty to amended counts of gross sexual imposition (GSI), felonious assault, and domestic violence in exchange for nolle prosequi of one rape count.
- The trial court accepted a group plea hearing in which five defendants entered pleas; the court conducted individual colloquies consistent with Crim.R. 11 and then ordered a presentence investigation and psychological evaluation.
- Sentences imposed: 16 months (GSI), 6 years (felonious assault), and 17 months (domestic violence), to run concurrently.
- Strimpel filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing and then filed a delayed appeal; the trial court had not ruled on the withdrawal motion when the appeal was filed.
- On appeal, Strimpel raised (1) that the group plea hearing and his asserted mental condition prevented a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea, and (2) that the trial court’s failure to rule on his motion to withdraw required remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 in accepting Strimpel's guilty plea conducted during a group plea hearing | State: The court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11; colloquy covered nature of charges, rights waived, penalties, and defendant spoke for himself | Strimpel: Group plea and subsequent ordering of a psych evaluation show he lacked a meaningful, individual colloquy and may have had mental incapacity to enter a knowing plea | Court: Plea complied with Crim.R. 11; individualized questioning occurred, no record evidence of incapacity, and plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntary |
| Whether the appellate court should remand because the trial court did not rule on Strimpel's motion to withdraw his plea before the appeal | State: Appellate review limited to issues properly before it; motions pending in trial court are for that court to resolve | Strimpel: Trial court should address the motion to withdraw, and appellate court should remand for that determination | Court: Declined to decide the withdrawal motion on appeal—trial court retains jurisdiction to decide the pending motion and the issue was outside the scope of the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; court must follow Crim.R. 11 colloquy)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (Crim.R. 11(C) requirements; distinction between constitutional and nonconstitutional plea advisements)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard and defendant’s subjective understanding)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (1977) (plea validity principles; related to plea understanding)