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 »

×

Guilty pleas on the assembly line

There were two cases on guilty pleas out of the 8th this past week.  While one resulted in the vacating of the plea, a highly unusual result, I confess it was pretty much of a headscratcher.

The one which stayed true to form was State v. Bassett, which presented the question of just how far a judge has to go in advising a pleading defendant of his 5th Amendment rights.  The trial court had told Bassett,

At trial you can present a defense, call witnesses, compel their appearance at trial by subpoena, testify yourself and tell your own side of the story; or you can choose not to testify and the prosecutor could not comment upon that fact in violation of your 5th Amendment right. Do you understand that?

See a problem?  Neither do I, but Bassett did, claiming that the above recitation didn't "strictly comply" with CrimR 11(C)(2)(c), because it didn't tell her that the state couldn't compel her to testify.  This argument isn't as hypertechnical as it might first appear.  A year back, in State v. Day, the court held that the trial judge's telling a defendant that he had the right to present witnesses didn't cut it; he also had to inform the defendant that he had the right to subpoena them.  In this case, though, the court decides that "the court's wording that appellant could choose not to testify is the equivalent of saying that the state could not compel her to testify," so that's the end of that.

The puzzler is State v. ColeCole and his buddy were charged with felonious assault, with one- and three-year gun specs.  The pleas for both were done together.  The deal was that both would plead to the felonious assault; the three-year gun spec on Cole would be deleted, and both of the gun specs on the co-defendant would be dismissed as well.  The trial judge went through that, properly advised Cole of his rights, and accepted his guilty plea.

The 8th vacates the plea, finding that "the totality of the circumstances do not demonstrate that the appellant understood the nature of the crime to which he was pleading guilty."

The indictment was never read to him, nor were the underlying facts ever described on the record.  There is no evidence that the elements of the offense were ever described or explained to appellant at any time, by his attorney, by the prosecutor, or by the court. Indeed, the fact that he was pleading guilty to felonious assault was not even made clear on the record until the conclusion of the proceedings, and then did not include any explanation of what conduct that crime entailed.

Understand, this is a "totality of the circumstances" test, so you can't read it as meaning that the trial judge always has to read the indictment, or that the facts always have to be described in the record.

Still, I've had any number of pleas which were largely indistinguishable from what happened here.  I can't remember the last time a judge explained the elements of the crime, or when the "underlying facts" were set forth, except when a factual basis has to be established for a no contest plea.  My guess is that had the judge simply read the count of the indictment the defendant was pleading to, that would've been sufficient.

There's also the possibility that the decision may simply have been a caution to trial judges being too mechanistic in their pleas.  I happen to know this judge, and he's not one of them, but other judges can be.  I remember, years ago, being out in Ashtabula County for a plea hearing.  The judge spent nearly fifteen minutes explaining the defendant's rights, in so much detail the guy probably could've passed a bar exam question on constitutional law.  That's great when you're doing three pleas a week, but when you're doing five or six a day, you can tend to rush things.  Several times, I've seen judges do "cattle call" pleas:  the defendants from four or five different cases are brought before the judges and the pleas are handled en masse.

So maybe the message of Cole is just to slow down and spend a little more time.

Search

Recent Entries

  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions
  • August 7, 2017
    Two on allied offenses
    A look at the 8th District's latest decisions on allied offenses
  • August 3, 2017
    Thursday Ruminations
    Computerized sentencing, lawyer ads, and songs from the past
  • August 1, 2017
    8th District Roundup
    One thing that doing this blog has taught me is how much the law changes. The US Supreme Court's decisions in Blakely v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington have dramatically altered the right to jury trial and confrontation, respectively. The...
  • July 28, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    The better part of discretion
  • July 26, 2017
    Supreme Court Recap - 2016 Term
    My annual review of the Supreme Court decisions from the past term
  • July 24, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Some things we knew, some things we didn't
  • July 21, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Computers and sex offenders, civil forfeiture, and phrases that should be put out to pasture