State v. Ickes

Summary

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Hugh B. Ickes III's convictions for felony operating a vehicle under the influence and driving under suspension. The court held that the trial court was not required to advise him before accepting his no-contest pleas that uncounseled prior convictions could not be used to enhance the offenses, and that he failed to demonstrate prejudice.

Holdings

1. Crim.R. 11 does not require a trial court to advise a defendant before accepting a plea that prior uncounseled convictions cannot be used to enhance the degree or punishment of the current offense, and Ickes identified no authority establishing such a requirement.
2. The State generally need not prove facts concerning prior convictions used for enhancement, including representation by counsel or a valid waiver, unless the defendant first disputes the convictions and makes a prima facie showing that they were uncounseled.
3. Ickes was not entitled to have his pleas vacated because he failed to affirmatively demonstrate prejudice, including that he would not have entered the pleas but for the alleged incomplete explanation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a no contest plea is invalid because the trial court did not advise the defendant before the plea that prior uncounseled convictions could not be used to enhance the degree or punishment of the current OVI offenses.
2. Whether the State was required, because the defendant entered no contest pleas, to prove that the prior OVI convictions were counseled or involved a valid waiver of counsel.
3. Whether the alleged plea deficiencies prejudiced the defendant so as to require vacatur of the pleas.

Disposition

affirmed