State v. Wallace
2015 Ohio 4222
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Tremayne Wallace pleaded guilty in two consolidated Lorain County cases (13CR087432 and 13CR088330) to drug offenses and a forfeiture specification; plea forms and the plea hearing contained language indicating the trial judge promised community control (probation).
- At the plea hearing the original judge said, “I’m going to put you on probation. I’m not going to send you to the penitentiary,” conditioned on Wallace cooperating with probation and not being arrested before sentencing.
- Before sentencing, the original judge was removed and a different judge conducted sentencing; the sentencing judge reviewed the PSI, noted Wallace’s criminal history, and imposed an aggregate one-year prison term.
- The assistant prosecutor at sentencing (new to the case) described the prior judge’s promise more loosely as community control unless “a surprise” appeared in the PSI.
- Wallace appealed, arguing (1) the sentencing judge violated the earlier promise to impose community control and (2) the court failed to address the forfeiture specification at sentencing. The State conceded error as to sentencing promise but the appellate record did not include the PSI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court violated a promise to impose community control made at plea hearing | State conceded error that prior judge promised community control | Wallace: plea was induced by judge’s promise; sentencing to prison breached that promise | Overruled — appellate record lacked PSI to show whether Wallace complied with conditions (cooperation and no arrest); Wallace bore burden to include PSI, so no reversible error shown |
| Whether the trial court erred by not addressing forfeiture specification at sentencing | State: forfeiture spec existed; could investigate and apply funds to costs | Wallace: court failed to consider/forfeit his seized money as part of sentencing | Overruled — issue was not raised at sentencing and thus forfeited; appellant did not argue plain error, so court declined to reach it |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (plea bargains implicate the need for courts to honor promises affecting voluntariness of pleas)
- State v. Byrd, 63 Ohio St.2d 288 (1980) (judicial participation in plea negotiations is discouraged and must be scrutinized to protect voluntariness)