State v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 11 January 1978 |
| Citation | 55 Ohio App.2d 64,379 N.E.2d 273,9 O.O.3d 223 |
| Parties | , 9 O.O.3d 223 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WILSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
A court is not in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) when it fails to inform the defendant in oral dialogue of the maximum penalties of the offense to which he pleads guilty, even though the defendant signs a written plea of guilty which recites those penalties.
Simon L. Leis, Jr., Leonard Kirschner and William P. Whalen, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellee.
Kenneth F. Seibel, Cincinnati, for appellant.
This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal; the transcript of the docket, journal entries and original papers from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County; and the transcript of the proceedings, the briefs and the arguments of counsel.
On the day of his trial, appellant pled guilty as charged to one count of rape. Having received a sentence of four to twenty-five years at the Ohio Reformatory, he now appeals, claiming the court failed to determine that he understood the maximum penalties involved, in violation of the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2). We agree.
The record discloses, and the state agrees, that the judge did not mention the penalties involved, much less determine if Wilson understood them. But the record also discloses that Wilson signed an "Entry Withdrawing Plea Of Not Guilty And Entering Plea Of Guilty," in which the penalties (incarceration and fine) were fully set forth, and further that at the subsequent sentence hearing, appellant clearly indicated that he knew when he offered the plea that he could be sentenced to seven to twenty-five years. The state claims there was substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2).
How much has the strict rule of State v. Caudill (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 342, 358 N.E.2d 601, been modified by State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 364 N.E.2d 1163? Stewart speaks of substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) and of the need to show prejudice before a guilty plea can be vacated. However, for the several reasons set forth below, we believe the Stewart exception must be limited to the facts in that case.
The syllabus in Stewart reads as follows:
We note that the first paragraph of the Caudill syllabus is only modified, not reversed, and that the other two paragraphs thereof are unchanged. As promulgated in 1976, the three paragraphs of Caudill read as follows:
A meaningful dialogue is still required, and written statements do not satisfy the requirements of the rule. The dialogue in the instant case, considering the total absence of any mention of the penalty, could not lead to a full understanding by appellant of the consequences of his plea.
The potential sentence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Of Ohio v. Moulton
...the court to satisfy itself that the defendant knows the maximum penalty applicable to the offense involved. State v. Wilson (1978), 55 Ohio App.2d 64, 65-66, 379 N.E.2d 273. Although the trial court erred when it did not inform Moulton of the range of sentence for a first-degree misdemeano......
-
State v. Yanez
...a written plea of guilty that recited the penalties, was not substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C). See State v. Wilson (1978), 55 Ohio App.2d 64, 9 O.O.3d 223, 379 N.E.2d 273; see, also, Cleveland v. Chebib (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 295, 299, 757 N.E.2d 1223. A trial court's obligation t......
-
State v. Hamilton, 2005 Ohio 5450 (OH 10/12/2005), No. 05CA4.
...court may accept his guilty plea." State v. Corbin (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 381, 386-387, 751 N.E.2d 505, citing State v. Wilson (1978), 55 Ohio App.2d 64, 379 N.E.2d 273; State v. Gibson (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 146, 517 N.E.2d 990. But nothing in Crim.R. 11 requires the court to inform a def......
-
City of Garfield Heights v. Brewer
...State v. Caudill (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 342, 358 N.E.2d 601 , paragraphs two and three of the syllabus; State v. Wilson (1978), 55 Ohio App.2d 64, 65, 379 N.E.2d 273 . A reviewing court will then be able to examine the record and determine whether the trial court explained the constitutional......