State v. DanglerState v. Dangler
PIETRYKOWSKI, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Brad J. Dangler, appeals from the December 14, 2015 judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas convicting him of sexual battery, a violation of
{¶ 2} On appeal, appellant asserts the following assignments of error:
Assignment of Error One: Appellant‘s guilty (sic)1 plea was invоluntary and unknowing when the trial court failed to substantially comply with
Crim.R. 11 by informing appellant of the punitivе consequences of his plea.Assignment of Error Two: The trial court erred when it imposed attorney fees at sentencing, without finding appellant had the ability to pay.
{¶ 3} Appellant was indictеd in a single-count indictment on August 18, 2015, alleging a violation of
{¶ 4} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues his plea was not voluntarily and knowingly made because the trial court failed to substantially comply with
{¶ 5} A plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily to be valid under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 7, quoting State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). The primary function of
{¶ 6}
{¶ 7} In the case before us, the sentencing judge bеgan by stating the requirements could be discussed in detail and that appellant would receive a written copy of the obligations for execution. The court then advised appellant of the lifetime registration and verification requirements he faced. However, the court failеd to notify appellant of the community notification requirements and the residential restrictiоns. Even if the written explanation mentioned at the hearing included this information, the trial court did not satisfy its obligation to personally inform appellant of these penalties. Having
{¶ 8} Because we must vacate the plea and judgment of conviction аnd sentencing, the issue of attorney fees raised in appellant‘s second assignment of error is moot, and we decline to address it.
{¶ 9} Having found that the trial court did commit error prejudicial tо appellant and that substantial justice has not been done, the judgment accepting appellant‘s plea, convicting him, and sentencing him is hereby vacated. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this decision. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
Judgment vacated.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
JUDGE
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.
CONCUR.
JUDGE