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

  • March 28, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Pro se motions, pro se defendants, and advice for deadbeat dads
  • March 27, 2017
    Case Update
    Gorsuch's embarrassing day, upcoming oral arguments in SCOTUS
  • March 20, 2017
    Taking time off
    I'm taking the week off. Have a major brief due on Thursday, plus a trial in Federal court starting next Monday. Plus, I'm pretty sure that Obama wiretapped me, too, so I'm working on getting to the bottom of that....
  • March 17, 2017
    What's Up with the 8th?
    The 8th District cases come out every Thursday. By about ten o'clock in the morning, the court will have posted the "weekly decision list" on its web site. It will give a summary of the case, usually in a sentence...
  • March 14, 2017
    Rippo and Pena-Rodriguez
    SCOTUS issues decisions on judicial recusal and biased jurors
  • March 13, 2017
    Case Update
    A SCOTUS decision on career offenders, and appellate cases on what a judge can consider in sentencing, and untimely motions to suppress
  • March 9, 2017
    A switch in time
    The court reverses itself in Gonzalez
  • March 8, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    More sentencing stories, and the right way to handle an Anders brief
  • March 7, 2017
    Case Update
    Knock and announce and the Ohio Constitution, and Anders briefs.
  • March 6, 2017
    Never mind
    The Ohio Supreme Court reverses Gonzalez.