Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

July 5, 2006

You've got a client charged with two counts of robbery, a kidnapping, and a forgery thrown in for good measure.  You work out a sweetheart deal on the day of trial -- a felony four robbery and a misdemeanor forgery.  Your client balks, claiming he's innocent, but you take him back in the holding cell and teach him some basic arithmetic, namely, that ten or fifteen years is a lot longer than six months, and it's even longer when you have to shower with a bunch of guys who have more tattoos than teeth. 

He comes to his senses, you go back out in front of the judge, and things are going swimmingly until your client pulls the same "but I didn't do it" routine.  At which point the judge announces, "I don't accept pleas from people that don't think they did anything wrong," refuses to accept the plea, and calls in the jury.  The story has a happy ending, because you get to tell your client, "I told you so":  the jury hangs on the kidnapping, but convicts on the other counts, and your client becomes a guest of Casa Taft for the next several years.

Well, okay, it wasn't such a happy ending for him.

But it did become one in the court of appeals, because the 10th District reverses the conviction, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in not accepting the plea.  Under North Carolina v. Alford, a court can accept a guilty plea from a defendant despite a protestation of innocence; Alford reasoned, correctly, that sometimes even an innocent man can rationally decide to plead guilty to a crime in order to minimize the penalty he might receive.  Alford says that the court isn't required to accept the plea -- in fact, it's not required to accept any plea -- but the appellate lawyer here made the excellent argument that the court abused its discretion by refusing to exercise it -- in other words, by imposing a blanket rule of not accepting Alford pleas.

There are a number of cases which have upheld the trial court's refusal to accept an Alford plea, including one from our county -- State v. Jones, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 590.  Those cases, however, don't engage in the analysis of abusing discretion by refusing to exercise it, so the 10th District's decision offers an opportunity for some creative lawyering.

Search

Recent Entries

  • January 17, 2018
    What's Up in the 8th
    When not to decide cases on allied offenses and pre-indictment delay
  • January 11, 2018
    Case Update
    Three new decisions from the Ohio Supreme Court
  • January 10, 2018
    To the barricades!
    Why I'm a threat to the Ohio state government
  • January 5, 2018
    Search and seizure in the digital age
    Do the cops need a warrant to get cell phone data?
  • January 3, 2018
    What's Up in the 8th
    We talk about me a lot, but there's some other stuff, too
  • January 2, 2018
    He's baaaack
    So I thought I'd start my first post in six weeks by explaining why it's my first post in six weeks. Ever run into somebody and ask the obligatory question, "How are you doing?" And they proceed to tell you...
  • November 15, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Plea withdrawals (again), sexual predator hearings, and an appellate law question
  • November 7, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Don't listen to prosecutors about the law, good new/bad news jokes on appeal, and the Byzantine course of a death penalty case
  • October 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Trying to change the past
  • October 16, 2017
    En banc on sentencing
    The 8th District takes a look at what State v. Marcum means