State v. Whittington, 2017 Ohio 613

Gordon Whittington was charged after a October 24, 2015 gas-station robbery; surveillance images and witness descriptions linked him to the crime and $220 taken was largely recovered from him.
Original indictment included aggravated robbery with a firearm specification and robbery; an amended bill charged robbery in violation of R.C. 2911.02(A)(3) and (B), a third-degree felony.
On December 17, 2015 Whittington entered an Alford plea to robbery; sentencing was set for January 7, 2016.
At sentencing the court reviewed Whittington’s extensive criminal history (multiple felonies and misdemeanors), found the factual basis supported the plea, and imposed 54 months imprisonment with three years postrelease control; journalized January 8, 2016.
Appointed counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal, proposing two potential issues: (1) plea not knowingly entered, and (2) sentence excessive.
The court reviewed the record, found the plea valid and the 54-month sentence within the statutory range and supported by the record, deemed the appeal frivolous, granted counsel’s withdrawal, and affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Whittington's Argument	Held
Whether Whittington’s Alford plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made	Court’s plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11; defendant was informed of rights and consequences	Plea was entered without adequate understanding of its sentencing effect	Plea was valid; colloquy satisfied Crim.R. 11 and plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent
Whether the 54-month sentence was contrary to law or unsupported by the record	Sentence falls within statutory range for a third-degree robbery with prior robbery convictions and is supported by record	Sentence was excessive / erroneous	Sentence (54 months) is within 12–60 month statutory range and supported by facts; not contrary to law

N.C. v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (establishes that a defendant may plead guilty while maintaining innocence if plea is voluntary and intelligent)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for counsel to withdraw on appeal when no meritorious issues exist)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Caudill, 48 Ohio St.2d 342 (1976) (Crim.R. 11 requires oral dialogue to determine defendant’s understanding of plea consequences)
State v. Duncan, 57 Ohio App.2d 93 (1978) (Anders withdrawal procedure discussed in Ohio context)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences)