State v. Welch
2017 Ohio 314
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant John Welch, on post-release control (PRC), pled guilty to fifth-degree felony domestic violence in exchange for dismissal of a felonious-assault charge.
- Written plea form stated: if currently on probation/parole/PRC, plea “may result in revocation proceedings and any new sentence will be imposed consecutively.”
- At plea hearing the court confirmed Welch reviewed the plea form with counsel and warned a guilty plea "could result in some additional incarceration" for violating PRC; court also explained that a PRC violation return-to-prison term "will be consecutive" to any new felony term.
- At sentencing the court imposed 12 months for domestic violence and 32 months for the PRC violation, to run consecutively (aggregate 44 months). The APA had earlier administratively imposed a 90-day prison sanction and 90 days of home detention for the PRC violation.
- On appeal Welch challenged (1) validity of his guilty plea because the court did not affirmatively state at the plea colloquy that any PRC violation prison term is mandatory consecutive per R.C. 2929.141(A)(1); and (2) sentencing credits/reductions — arguing the court should have reduced its 32-month PRC sentence by the APA’s 90-day prison sanction and given credit for time jailed awaiting the APA hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Welch’s guilty plea was invalid because the trial court did not explicitly state at the plea colloquy that any PRC prison sanction must be served consecutively | State: trial court substantially complied with Crim.R.11 and Welch understood consequences | Welch: plea involuntary because court failed to inform him that PRC prison term must be imposed consecutively (mandatory) | Court held plea was valid: substantial compliance with Crim.R.11 given explicit written plea language, oral confirmation he reviewed form, and oral advisement that PRC prison term would be consecutive |
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to reduce its PRC prison term by the APA’s administratively imposed prison sanction and by failing to give jail-time credit for detention pending the APA hearing | State: trial court credited time appropriately; no further reduction required beyond judicial determination | Welch: trial court should reduce its 32-month PRC term by 90 days (APA prison) and also credit time jailed awaiting APA hearing | Court held in part for Welch: statutory mandate (R.C.2929.141(A)(1)) required reduction of the court’s 32-month PRC prison term by 90 days (reduced to 29 months); no additional reduction for home detention; jail-time credit was properly awarded as entered |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (trial courts urged to literally comply with Crim.R.11; distinguishes strict/substantial compliance for different Crim.R.11 provisions)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (substantial compliance with Crim.R.11 where defendant signed and acknowledged plea form)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (defendant claiming nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 defects must show prejudice; defines prejudice standard)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (explains that nondconstitutional Crim.R.11 rights require only substantial compliance)