Update: On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in this case.  Read the analysis here.

Read the analysis of this argument here. 

On February 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in State of Ohio v. Brad J. Dangler, 2017-1703. At issue is whether a trial court must inform a defendant of all penalties associated with a sex offender classification to comply with Crim.R. 11’s requirement that a defendant enter a plea knowingly and voluntarily. The case was accepted on conflict certification.

Case Background

On November 10, 2015, as part of a negotiated plea, Brad Dangler pled no contest to a sexual battery charge.  At the plea hearing, Williams County Court of Common Pleas Judge J.T. Stelzer told Dangler that he would have to register as a Tier III sex offender for life. Dangler acknowledged that he understood the explanation. At the sentencing hearing, Judge Stelzer informed Dangler that this registration required specific reporting obligations, and that these obligations would be provided to him in writing at a later point in time. But at no time did the judge inform Dangler of the community notification requirements and the residential restrictions. Dangler was sentenced to three years in prison and five years of post-release control.

Dangler appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeals on the grounds that his plea was not voluntarily and knowingly made because the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 by not informing him of the punitive consequences of his plea—specifically, that the trial court never informed him of the community notification requirements, residence restrictions, and in-person verification requirements of Tier III registered sex offenders.

In a unanimous decision written by Judge Mark L. Pietrykowski, joined by Judges Thomas Osowik and Christine Mayle, the Sixth District reversed the trial court. The Appeals Court held that the trial court failed to substantially comply with Crim. R. 11’s requirement that Dangler be informed of the punitive consequences of his plea.

The Supreme Court then accepted the case on conflict certification.

Certified Question

“During a plea proceeding, does the failure of the sentencing court to inform a defendant of all the penalties associated with a sex offender classification imposed by R.C. Chapter 2950 constitute a complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 and render the plea void without the need to show prejudice resulted?”

Certified Conflict Cases

 State v. Creed, 2012-Ohio-2627 (8th Dist.) (The trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11 despite failing to notify the defendant that by pleading guilty he could not live within 1,000 feet of a school.)

State v. Young, 2014-Ohio-2213 (2nd Dist.) (The trial court’s reference to the correct sex-offender tier level and the need for registration constituted partial compliance, and because no prejudice was shown, the plea was valid.)

Votes to Accept the Case

Yes: Chief Justice O’Connor, Justices DeGenaro, DeWine, Kennedy, and O’Donnell*

No: Justices French and Fischer

*Chief Justice O’Connor and Justice DeWine would hold the cause for the decision in 2017-08 91, State v. Kouts.

Key Statutes and Precedent

R.C. 2950 (Ohio’s sex offender classifications and registration requirements, including duty to register, residency restrictions, and geographic notifications.)

Crim.R. 11 (A court shall not accept a guilty or no contest plea without addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.)

State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (“Literal compliance with Crim. R. 11 is certainly the preferred practice, but the fact that the trial judge did not do so does not require vacation of the defendant’s guilty plea if the reviewing court determines that there was substantial compliance.”)

State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200 (“Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving.”)

State v. Williams, 2011-Ohio-3374 (The registration requirements of R.C. 2950 are punitive, rather than remedial, measures.)

State v. Barker, 2011-Ohio-4130 (An alleged ambiguity during a Crim.R. 11 oral plea colloquy may be clarified by reference to other portions of the record, including the written plea. Syllabus paragraph 2.)

State v. Young, 2014-Ohio-2213 (2nd Dist.) (“. . . a trial court need not elaborate on every specific registration requirement before accepting a plea.”)

State v. Blankenship, 2015-Ohio-4624 (Enhanced sex-offender reporting and notification requirements are punitive in nature, but do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment.)

State’s Argument

The Supreme Court of Ohio should answer the certified question in the negative, and find that when a trial court only partially informs a defendant of some of the requirements of a sex offender classification at the time of the plea, the defendant must show prejudice to void the plea.

In order to void the plea, most Ohio courts interpret Crim.R. 11 to require a “complete failure” of the trial court to either not mention sex-offender classification at all during a plea or to actively misstate the law to a defendant. The Sixth District uses a much broader standard that requires the court to notify the defendant of all classification requirements and their consequences. In the Sixth District, a plea is void and prejudice is presumed when this stricter standard is not met.

In contrast, all other districts use a “substantial compliance” test. This test hinges on whether defendants subjectively understand that they are pleading to a sexually oriented offense that has restrictions along with it.  Crim.R. 11 is deemed to be substantially complied with when defendants are advised of sex offender classifications, and under such advisement defendants must only be strictly advised of constitutional notifications. For the remainder, substantial compliance is enough.

Additionally, the Supreme Court should revisit State v. Williams and progeny which treat sex-offender registration obligations as punitive because these cases give sex offenders greater notice and treatment in pleading than other criminal offenders. Generally, defendants are not required to be notified of collateral consequences which result from their convictions, and if the Court finds R.C. 2950 to be remedial instead of punitive, sex offenders should not be treated differently from other defendants who may have collateral consequences attached to their pleas.

Dangler’s Argument

The Court should hold that a trial court must verbally notify defendants, at the time of their pleas, of all punitive consequences of the pertinent sex offender classification in order to substantially comply with Crim R. 11.

R.C. 2950 is a punitive measure, and comes with several consequences that this Court has deemed punitive, including: (1) personal registration with the sheriff; (2) restrictions on where an offender may live; and (3) community notification. These consequences must be verbally told to the defendant at the plea hearing in order to comply with Crim.R. 11.  The trial court failed to inform Mr. Dangler of all of the punitive consequences of his classification, and thus his plea was unknowing.

The State’s proposed rule would gut Crim.R. 11’s present substantial requirement test and replace it with a total non-compliance standard. The state would find a lack of substantial compliance only if no consequences of sex offender classification are brought up during the plea hearing.

The Court should answer the certified question with a conditional yes. The defendant need not be notified of all of the penalties associated with sex offender status; only those the Court has determined to be punitive.

Student Contributor: Carson Miller