2021 Ohio 1128
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Jason Tipton was indicted on two counts of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles for allegedly making two children under 13 watch pornography while naked.
- Tipton pled guilty to one fourth-degree felony in exchange for dismissal of the other charge.
- At the plea hearing the court (and plea form) incorrectly told Tipton he faced an optional three-year period of postrelease control; the offense actually carried a mandatory five-year postrelease control term.
- At sentencing the court corrected the error, advised Tipton of the mandatory five-year postrelease control, and the judgment entry reflected the correct five-year term.
- Tipton appealed, arguing his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary because the plea colloquy misstated postrelease control and that the error required vacatur without showing prejudice under State v. Dangler.
- The appellate court held the colloquy contained a misstatement but not a complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); Tipton therefore had to show prejudice, which he failed to do, and the conviction was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tipton's guilty plea was invalid because the plea colloquy misidentified postrelease control as optional rather than mandatory | Tipton: misstatement is a complete Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) failure per Dangler, so no prejudice showing required and plea must be vacated | State: court mentioned postrelease control (albeit inaccurately); this is not a complete failure under Dangler, so Tipton must show prejudice and has not done so | Misstatement occurred but was not a complete Rule 11 failure; Tipton must show prejudice and failed to do so; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 (2018) (Crim.R. 11(C) governs felony pleas)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (postrelease control is part of a felony sentence)
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (2020) (framework for assessing Rule 11 compliance and when prejudice must be shown)
- Woods v. Telb, 89 Ohio St.3d 504 (2000) (postrelease control is part of the maximum penalty)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (failure to advise of postrelease control can be a complete Rule 11 omission)