State v. Willard
2021 Ohio 2552
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Jeffrey Willard was indicted on six felonies arising from a bar arrest: weapons while under disability; two counts of grand theft (one vehicle); failure to comply with police; escape; and obstructing official business.
- Willard withdrew not-guilty pleas and pled guilty to all six counts pursuant to a written plea agreement; the parties jointly recommended an aggregate 36-month term. The plea form noted that "restitution may be imposed" and that consecutive sentences were possible.
- At the plea hearing the court advised Willard of the statutory maximums for each count and of a mandatory consecutive term for the failure-to-comply count; the court accepted the guilty pleas and proceeded to sentencing.
- At sentencing the Liberty Township Police Dept. submitted a victim form seeking $10,000 for vehicle damage (apparently insured) and $4,500 for officer overtime; the court ordered $4,500 restitution for overtime and imposed an aggregate 96-month sentence (with some concurrency/consistency issues noted in the record).
- Willard appealed, arguing (1) his pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the court failed under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) to advise him about potential consecutive prison terms and restitution, and (2) the $4,500 restitution for officer overtime was improper because the police department is not a "victim" under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1). The state conceded the police-department-victim point on supplemental briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Willard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea advisement failed by omitting possible consecutive sentences | State: Trial court properly advised maximum individual penalties; Johnson controls—no need to advise generally of possible consecutive service beyond mandatory consecutive statutes | Willard: Court failed to advise that sentences on multiple counts could run consecutively, so plea was not knowing/voluntary | Held: No error—court complied with Crim.R. 11 as to maximum penalties and expressly advised as to the mandatory consecutive term for the failure-to-comply count (Johnson and related authority apply). |
| Whether plea advisement failed by omitting potential restitution | State: The written plea form said restitution "may be imposed" and court reviewed plea agreement—sufficient | Willard: Court made no mention of restitution at plea colloquy, so plea was not knowing/voluntary under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) | Held: Trial court erred by failing to advise that restitution could be imposed (restitution is part of the sentence), but error did not relieve Willard of proving prejudice. |
| Whether Willard showed prejudice from the restitution-advisement omission (Dangler prejudice test) | State: No prejudice; record shows Willard did not contest overtime and did not move to withdraw plea | Willard: Would not have pled guilty if advised of restitution potential | Held: No prejudice shown on the record—Willard did not demonstrate he would have declined the plea; plea stands. |
| Whether police-department overtime is recoverable restitution (is department a "victim") | State (conceded on supplemental brief): Police dept. is not a victim under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) for ordinary operating costs; restitution order erroneous | Willard: Restitution for overtime lacks record support and police dept. not a statutory "victim" | Held: Clear and convincing error—police overtime is part of normal operating costs and the department is not a "victim" entitled to restitution under R.C. 2929.18(A)(1); restitution vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dangler, 164 N.E.3d 286 (Ohio 2020) (framework for Crim.R. 11 compliance review and prejudice analysis)
- State v. Johnson, 532 N.E.2d 1295 (Ohio 1988) (advising maximum individual sentences satisfies Crim.R. 11 despite not warning generally that sentences may run consecutively)
- State v. Bishop, 124 N.E.3d 766 (Ohio 2018) (distinguishes Johnson where separate statutory penalties or postrelease-control consequences change maximum exposure)
- State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (written plea form may be considered in assessing Crim.R. 11 compliance)
- State v. Danison, 823 N.E.2d 444 (Ohio 2005) (restitution is part of a felony sentence)
- State v. Sarkozy, 881 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 2008) (trial court’s complete failure to advise of mandatory component of sentence removes defendant’s prejudice burden)