State v. Blake

Citations

• 2026 Ohio 1769

Syllabus

Guilty plea; Crim.R. 11(C); complete failure; prejudice; restitution; discretionary; contrary to law; R.C. 2929.11; R.C. 2929.12; purposes and principles of felony sentencing; sentencing factors; Marsy's Law; defendant's ability to pay restitution; allied offenses of similar import; plain error. The trial court's failure to inform appellant that he could be subject to restitution at his plea hearing was not a complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11, and therefore, appellant had to demonstrate prejudice to establish his plea was less than knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Nothing in the record demonstrated that appellant would not have entered his guilty plea had he been notified of the possibility of restitution. The trial court's sentence was not contrary to law where the court considered the purposes and principles of felony sentencing in R.C. 2929.11 and the sentencing factors in R.C. 2929.12, and the corresponding sentencing judgment entry indicated the court considered all required factors of the law. The trial court did not err in ordering restitution. Pursuant to Marsy's Law, the trial court did not need to consider the appellant's ability to pay restitution. Appellant did not demonstrate that the trial court committed plain error when it did not merge felonious-assault, strangulation, and domestic-violence convictions for sentencing purposes.