State v. Whitten
2019 Ohio 4199
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Johnathan Whitten was indicted on two counts of aggravated robbery (with firearm and repeat violent offender specifications) and one weapons-under-disability count; Count 3 was later dismissed.
- Whitten entered an Alford guilty plea to lesser-included robbery for both counts; one count included a firearm specification requiring a mandatory one-year term; plea paperwork stated the prison terms were mandatory and set a maximum of 17 years (3–17 years mandatory).
- During the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, the trial court mistakenly told Whitten that only one year (for the firearm specification) was mandatory and described the other count as having a possible eight-year term, creating confusion about mandatory imprisonment for prior convictions.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent six-year terms plus one mandatory consecutive year for the firearm specification, yielding an aggregate mandatory seven-year sentence.
- Whitten appealed, arguing his Alford plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made because the trial court failed to advise him properly that additional mandatory prison time could apply due to his prior first-degree felony; the appellate court agreed and vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Whitten's Alford plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered under Crim.R. 11 when the court misstated which terms were mandatory | State: The court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 and the written plea agreement notified Whitten of the penalties | Whitten: The court’s incorrect oral statements about mandatory prison terms prevented a knowing, voluntary plea because he wasn’t properly informed about mandatory imprisonment tied to prior felony | Court: Reversed — trial court did not substantially comply with Crim.R. 11; the plea could not be knowingly made and was vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (permits a guilty plea while maintaining innocence under certain circumstances)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (the maximum penalty includes mandatory prison terms for Crim.R. 11 purposes)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (Crim.R. 11 nonconstitutional rights require only substantial compliance)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance requires the defendant subjectively understand the plea’s implications)
- State v. Tutt, 54 N.E.3d 619 (2015) (reiterates that Crim.R. 11 requires advising defendants of maximum penalties, including mandatory terms)