State v. Tebary
2016 Ohio 3095
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Frank Tebary pleaded guilty to rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), (B)), a first-degree felony; trial court sentenced him to nine years and classified him as a Tier III sex offender.
- Tier III classification triggers lifetime registration, 90-day verification, and community notification obligations under R.C. Chapter 2950.
- At plea colloquy the court told Tebary he would be classified as Tier III, would have registration and verification requirements, might trigger notifications to victims/neighbors/schools, could be barred from living within 1,000 feet of a school, and that failure to register is a crime. The court did not specify the 90‑day lifetime reporting interval.
- Tebary appealed, arguing (1) his guilty plea was involuntary because the court failed to fully advise him of punitive consequences (specifically the exact registration requirements), and (2) the court erred by imposing costs for appointed counsel and confinement without properly considering his ability to pay.
- The trial court found Tebary had or reasonably may be expected to have the means to pay costs; the appeals court reviewed both Crim.R. 11 compliance and the record on ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing/voluntary under Crim.R. 11 when court omitted specific 90‑day lifetime reporting detail | Tebary: omission of the specific lifetime 90‑day registration period rendered his plea involuntary and violated due process | State: court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 by informing Tebary of Tier III classification and its major consequences; omission of the 90‑day detail does not invalidate plea | Court held substantial compliance satisfied; plea was knowing, voluntary, and valid despite omission |
| Whether court erred in imposing costs of appointed counsel and confinement without assessing ability to pay | Tebary: court failed to properly consider his ability to pay before ordering reimbursement | State: statutory scheme permits costs; court’s on‑record finding plus facts about Tebary’s age, veteran status, and employment supported ability-to-pay determination | Court held record contained sufficient evidence that Tebary had or reasonably may be expected to have means to pay; imposition of costs proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (guilty pleas must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (trial court must engage defendant in Crim.R. 11 colloquy)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (defendant must be informed in a reasonable manner of trial rights when pleading guilty)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance standard explained for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 notifications)
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio 2011) (R.C. Chapter 2950 registration/notification requirements are punitive and must be explained in Rule 11 colloquy)