State v. Utley
2017 Ohio 6920
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2017Background
- Darian Lamont Utley was indicted in multiple Lucas County cases on burglary and receiving-stolen-property charges; several counts were amended or dismissed as part of a plea deal.
- On December 7, 2015, Utley entered Alford pleas to four burglary counts (two second-degree, two third-degree). Remaining charges were dismissed.
- The parties agreed to a joint recommended cumulative prison term of ten years.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent eight-year terms on the second-degree burglaries and concurrent 24-month terms on the third-degree burglaries, ordered the third-degree terms consecutive to the eight-year terms, producing the agreed 10-year total, and made R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw, raising two potential assignments of error: (1) plea not knowing/voluntary; (2) sentence excessive/contrary to law.
- The Sixth District independently reviewed the record, found no arguable merits, granted counsel leave to withdraw, and affirmed the convictions and joint sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utley’s Alford plea was made knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently under Crim.R. 11(C) | State: trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C); rights and penalties were explained | Utley (argued via counsel): plea should be set aside for not being knowing/voluntary | Court: trial court fully complied; plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent — no merit |
| Whether the jointly recommended 10-year sentence is appealable / excessive or contrary to law | State: sentence was jointly recommended and complied with mandatory provisions, so not reviewable under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) | Utley: sentence is excessive and contrary to law | Court: sentence was authorized by law and jointly recommended; R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) precludes review — no merit |
| Whether appellate counsel properly followed Anders procedures | State: counsel complied with Anders requirements in brief and notification | Utley: (no pro se brief raised) | Court: conducted independent review, found no issues of arguable merit, granted counsel leave to withdraw |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (plea may be accepted despite defendant’s protestation of innocence when intelligently entered)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (trial court must ensure plea is voluntary and defendant understands charges and penalties)
- State v. Colbert, 71 Ohio App.3d 734 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (strict compliance required for Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) constitutional rights)
- State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (Ohio 1977) (nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 provisions require substantial compliance)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (‘‘substantial compliance’’ standard defined by defendant’s subjective understanding)
- State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (Ohio 2010) (R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) bars appellate review of jointly recommended, lawfully imposed sentences)