State v. Verity
2013 Ohio 1158
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Verity pleaded guilty to three counts of breaking and entering and one count of vandalism, all fifth-degree felonies, following a Crim.R. 11 colloquy.
- The State agreed to stand silent as to sentencing in exchange for the guilty pleas.
- The trial court sentenced Verity to a two-year aggregate term, with one count consecutive and others concurrent, and notified about post-release control.
- HB 86 reforms governed consecutive sentencing, requiring findings to support such sentences.
- Verity’s prior criminal history and the substantial economic harm from the offenses were considered in sentencing.
- Counsel filed an Anders no-merit brief; Verity did not file a pro se brief; the court must review the appeal for meritorious issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the guilty plea | Verity | Verity | Plea valid; knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently entered. |
| Consecutive sentencing under HB 86 | Court must make explicit statutory findings | Findings implied; no disproportionate punishment | Court's record showed sufficient factual findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) and sentence is not contrary to law. |
| Crim.R. 11 nonconstitutional advisements and substantial compliance | Rights advisements strictly complied | Minor nonconstitutional omissions | Advisements substantially complied; no prejudicial effect; plea valid. |
| Post-release control and overall sentencing rationale | HB 86 and P.R.C. considerations support sentence | Rehabilitation cited; alternative community control possible | Sentence within statutory range; not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (plea must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; Crim.R. 11 compliance)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (plea advisements require substantial compliance)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (prejudice standard for Crim.R.11 nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008) (framework for reviewing felony sentences (Kalish test))
- State v. Foster, 943 S. (state reporters not provided in prompt) (2010) (constitutional limits on certain factual findings; pre-Foster guidance addressed by Ice/Hodge)
- State v. Hodge, 128 Ohio St.3d 1 (2010) ( Ice jurisprudence; necessity of findings for consecutive sentences under HB 86)
- Oregon v. Ice, 555 U.S. 160 (2009) (Sixth Amendment requires no jury findings for consecutive sentences after Ice)