State v. Slaughter

Summary

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed Andrew L. Slaughter III’s guilty plea and denial of his motion to withdraw the plea. The court held that the plea was valid and that Slaughter failed to establish grounds for withdrawal. However, it reversed the sentence in part because the trial court disapproved shock incarceration and intensive program prison placement without making factual findings and stating reasons as required by R.C. 2929.19(D), and remanded for resentencing.

Holdings

1. The guilty plea was valid because the plea hearing complied with Crim.R. 11 and the record did not establish that the plea was involuntary, coerced, or otherwise unknowing.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Slaughter's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, even though it applied the stricter post-sentence standard at defense counsel's invitation.
3. A trial court violates R.C. 2929.19(D) when it disapproves shock incarceration or placement in an intensive program prison without making a finding supported by specific factual reasons.
4. The agreed-sentence bar in R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) did not preclude review of the trial court's disapproval of shock incarceration or intensive-program-prison placement because that aspect of the sentence was not authorized by law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Slaughter's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered under Crim.R. 11.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Slaughter's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
3. Whether the trial court's disapproval of shock incarceration or placement in an intensive program prison was contrary to law because it failed to state factual reasons as required by R.C. 2929.19(D).
4. Whether the agreed-sentence limitation on appellate review under R.C. 2953.08(D)(1) barred review of the sentencing error.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded