State v. Meeker

• Decision Date: 21 May 1969
• Docket Number: No. 5493,5493
• Citation: State v. Meeker, 251 N.E.2d 162, 19 Ohio Misc. 198 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 1969)
• Parties: , 48 O.O.2d 418 The STATE of Ohio v. MEEKER.
• Court: Ohio Court of Common Pleas

Page 198

19 Ohio Misc. 198

251 N.E.2d 162, 48 O.O.2d 418

The STATE of Ohio v.MEEKER.

No. 5493.

Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Lake County.

May 21, 1969.

Fred V. Skok, Prosecutor, and Leo J. Talikka, Painesville, for state.

William W. Weaver and Zettelmeyer, McCarter & Weaver, Willoughby, for defendant.

SIMMONS, Judge.

Defendant has moved the court for the following orders:

(1) For an order requiring the state to hold a preliminary hearing, claiming that otherwise his plea of 'guilty' to the Painesville Municipal Court on June 21, 1963, will be offered in evidence against him.

(2) For an order prohibiting the state from trying him on any charge other than 'unarmed robbery.'The recent session of the Grand Jury has indicted him on four counts, armed robbery, theft of a motor vehicle, cutting with intent to wound and assault with attempt to rob.This motion is treated as a motion to quash all four counts of the indictment;

(3) For an order crediting him with time served in prison under the vacated sentence.

After considering the motions, supporting and opposing briefs, the record and the law, MotionNo. 1 is overruled, MotionNo. 2 is sustained in part and overruled in remainder and MotionNo. 3 is sustained.Counts 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment are quashed and defendant must appear before this court and enter his plea to the first count.Exceptions noted to both parties.

It is so ordered.

(1) A criminal defendant has no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing and the state may go directly to the Grand Jury for an indictment without providing one.State v. Minamyer, 12 Ohio St.2d 67, 232 N.E.2d 401.Further, a plea of guilty to a felony in municipal court, without benefit of legal counsel, is inadmissible at trial.State v. Stetson, 10 Ohio St.2d 64, 225 N.E.2d 222.Thus, the state cannot refer to this guilty plea in any way that brings it to a jury.

(2)Defendant was originally charged with 'armed robbery' in 1963 upon an information containing only the one count.He plead 'guilty.'Five months later he was allowed to substitute a plea of 'guilty' to the lesser and included offense of 'unarmed robbery' and was sentenced.This court vacated his sentence in March of this year and returned him from the Ohio State Reformatory to stand trial upon a new information or indictment.Last month he was indicted as described.

In asking that all counts of the indictment be quashed defendant relies on Federal decisions holding, generally, that a defendant must be free to contest an unlawful conviction without fear of reprisal or punishment.Patton v. North Carolina, 4 Cir., 381 F.2d 636;Marano v. United States, 1 Cir., 374 F.2d 583;United States ex rel. Hetenyi v. Wilkins, 2 Cir., 348 F.2d 844;United States ex rel. Starner v. Russell, D.C., 260 F.Supp. 265.

These cases are not applicable on their facts for they involve state or Federal action which is clearly prohibited, i. e., double jeopardy and punitive sentencing.

In Hetenyi a jury convicted the defendant of a lesser and included offense to the indicted charge.After the conviction was reversed he was retried on the same indictment and convicted.The court said that double jeopardy was involved, that the first jury impliedly acquitted him of the indicted offense by convicting him of the lesser charge and he could not then be retried upon the more serious offense.

The Patton, Marano and Russell cases each involved a harsher sentence after a second conviction upon the same charge as before.

This case involves neither situation.Defendant has never been tried, so has not been impliedly or explicitly acquitted of anything.And if it turns out that he receives a harsher sentence than before it will not be a punitive action but a result dictated by the statute applying to 'armed robbery.'

While the facts of the cited Federal cases are not pertinent to this case, the principle of justice they espouse is.This defendant has the absolute right to challenge a constitutionally-invalid conviction free of the threat and fact of punishment.Is this right violated in Meeker's case by permitting the state to try him for armed robbery?It is not!

Is the right violated by permitting the state to try him for the new charges, counts 2, 3 and 4?Yes, it is!

Plea bargaining before trial is a proper and useful technique which promotes the interests of both the state and the defendant.Quite commonly a prosecutor will recommend a reduction of the indicted charge in exchange for a plea of ...