State v. Hall

Citations

• 173 N.E.3d 166
• 2021 Ohio 1894

Syllabus

Appellant's guilty pleas were made in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary fashion. The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 when it orally informed appellant of the correct three-year term of post-release control for his kidnapping offense. Appellant was not prejudiced when the trial court advised him that his term of imprisonment could be reduced by good behavior earned credit, and the advisement did not render his guilty pleas unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 when it informed appellant of his duty to register as violent offender at the plea hearing. The record establishes that the trial court considered the principles and purposes of sentencing under R.C. 2929.11 and balanced the seriousness and recidivism factors set forth in R.C. 2929.12. Thus, the sentence imposed by the trial court was not contrary to law. The Reagan Tokes Act does not violate the separation of powers doctrine or a defendant's right to procedural due process, and the trial court did not err when it sentenced the appellant pursuant to the statute. Judgment affirmed.