Failure to Advise a Defendant That the Sentence Will Include a Mandatory Term of Postrelease Control
In State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008 Ohio 509, 881 N.E.2d 1224, a defendant entered guilty pleas to several offenses.
Prior to accepting his pleas, the trial court orally advised him of the prison terms involved with the relevant offenses.
However, the trial court did not orally inform him that he would be subject to postrelease control, of the duration of the postrelease control, or of the consequences he would face upon violating postrelease control.
After entering his pleas, but prior to sentencing, Sarkozy made a pro se oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, challenging his attorney's performance.
The trial court denied the motion and Sarkozy directly appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that his plea was invalid because the trial court did not inform him that postrelease control would be part of his sentence.
The appellate court rejected this argument and affirmed his convictions, but remanded for resentencing pursuant to State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006 Ohio 856, 845 N.E.2d 470.
Thereafter, the Supreme Court accepted a discretionary appeal and vacated Sarkozy's plea, holding that:
If a trial court fails during a plea colloquy to advise a defendant that the sentence will include a mandatory term of postrelease control, the defendant may dispute the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of the plea either by filing a motion to withdraw the plea or upon direct appeal.
If the trial court fails during the plea colloquy to advise a defendant that the sentence will include a mandatory term of postrelease control, the court fails to comply with Crim.R. 11, and the reviewing court must vacate the plea and remand the cause. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St. 3d 86, 2008 Ohio 509, 881 N.E.2d 1224, at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus.