State v. Whitfield

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 982

Syllabus

Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) failure to advise of postrelease control. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) provides in pertinent part that the court shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved. The requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) are nonconstitutional, and thus, this court reviews \to ensure substantial compliance\ with this rule. Under this standard, a slight deviation from the text of the rule is permissible so long as the totality of the circumstances indicates that \the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving.\ When the trial court does not \substantially comply\ with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), a reviewing court must then determine whether the trial court partially complied or failed to comply with this rule. If the trial judge partially complied, e.g., by mentioning mandatory postrelease control without explaining it, the plea may be vacated only if the defendant demonstrates a prejudicial effect. As repeatedly recognized by the Ohio Supreme Court, a defendant must show prejudice before a plea will be vacated for a trial court's error involving Crim.R. 11(C) procedure when nonconstitutional aspects of the colloquy are at issue. The test for prejudicial effect is whether the plea would have otherwise been made. Whitfield was sentenced on offenses committed after the effective date of Senate Bill 2 he was subject to postrelease control. The trial court made no mention of postrelease control at the plea hearing. Because the trial court completely failed to comply, the plea must be vacated, and a showing of prejudice is not required. As a result of the trial court's complete failure to properly advise and impose upon Whitfield the requisite period of postrelease control, his pleas must be vacated.