Summary
The Ohio First District Court of Appeals affirmed Jeffrey Thomas Lea's convictions following guilty pleas to three counts of breaking and entering and one count of failure to comply with a police officer's order or signal. The court held that although the trial court did not expressly advise Lea that the failure-to-comply sentence was mandatory and consecutive, the court advised him of the maximum aggregate sentence, and Lea failed to demonstrate prejudice under Crim.R. 11(C).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court's failure to advise Lea that a sentence for violating R.C. 2921.331(B) must be served consecutively to any other prison term rendered his guilty plea invalid under Crim.R. 11(C).
- Whether the guilty pleas in both cases had to be vacated because they were part of a larger plea agreement.
Holdings
- The trial court did not fully comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) because it failed to inform Lea that a sentence for the failure-to-comply conviction was mandatory and had to be served consecutively to any other prison term. However, the omission was an incomplete or inaccurate advisement rather than a complete failure to address the maximum penalty, so Lea was required to demonstrate prejudice. He failed to show that he would not otherwise have pleaded guilty; therefore, the plea remained valid.
- The challenge to the pleas in both cases was moot because the court rejected Lea's underlying challenge to the failure-to-comply plea.
Key quotations
“To show prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate that he or she would not otherwise have entered the plea.” (¶ 14)
“Although the court failed to inform him that he faced a mandatory consecutive sentence on the failure-to-comply charge, at best, the advisement was incomplete or inaccurate.” (¶ 25)
Factual background
Lea was charged with three fifth-degree-felony counts of breaking and entering and two counts of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. He pleaded guilty to all three breaking-and-entering counts and to a fourth-degree-felony failure-to-comply count, while the State dismissed the third-degree-felony failure-to-comply charge. During the plea colloquy, the trial court explained the potential sentence on each case and advised that the sentences could run consecutively, for a potential aggregate sentence of four and one-half years, but did not state that the failure-to-comply sentence was statutorily mandatory and consecutive. The court ultimately imposed 24 months on the breaking-and-entering case and 18 months consecutively on the failure-to-comply case.
Procedural history
Lea was charged in two Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas cases with three counts of breaking and entering and two counts of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer. He pleaded guilty to the breaking-and-entering charges and to one fourth-degree-felony failure-to-comply charge in exchange for dismissal of the other failure-to-comply charge. The trial court imposed consecutive prison terms totaling 42 months. The First District affirmed the judgments, holding that although the plea advisement did not expressly state that the failure-to-comply sentence was mandatory and consecutive, Lea failed to demonstrate prejudice.