State v. Simpson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Simpson, 158 Ohio App.3d 441, 2004-Ohio-4690.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO THE STATE OF OHIO, Appellee, C.A. CASE NOS. 20016, 20017, 20018 v. T.C. CASE NOS. 03CR260 98CR3538, 00CR2130 SIMPSON, (Criminal Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Appellant. . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 3rd day of September, 2004. . . . . . . . . . Mathias H. Heck Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, and Natalia S. Harris, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Jay A. Adams, for appellant. . . . . . . . . . GRADY, Judge. {¶1} Defendant, Martha Simpson, appeals from her conviction for arson and the aggregate sentence of three years that the trial court imposed for that offense and for two prior offenses after it revoked community-control sanctions that had been imposed for those offenses. {¶2} Defendant s conviction for arson was entered on 2 her plea of no contest. The plea was the product of a bargain between defendant and the state. When it accepted her plea, the court engaged in the following colloquy with defendant: {¶3} THE COURT: Now, the prosecutor has also agreed to be silent regarding the issue of sentence. The prosecutor is not going to make any statement to the court. He s going to leave it up to the court on whether to grant probation or not. Do you understand that? {¶4} MS. SIMPSON: Yes. {¶5} THE COURT: But the agreement is that if - - not the agreement, but the prosecutor has said that if you are sentenced, then the prosecutor is going to recommend to the court that you receive out of all of these charges, you receive the lowest possible sentence which would be one year. That would be the recommendation of the prosecutor. Do you understand that? {¶6} MS. SIMPSON: Yes. {¶7} THE COURT: But the court is going to decide whether, if the court decides to impose a prison sentence, the court will decide whether or not to go along with the recommendation of a one-year sentence. Do you understand that? {¶8} MS. SIMPSON: Yes. {¶9} THE COURT: So that the range 3 possible of sentence, when you put this all together, if you receive a prison sentence, the lowest possible sentence you could receive would be one year and the highest possible sentence would be three years under this plea bargain. Do you understand that? {¶10} MS. SIMPSON: Yes. {¶11} When the case came on for sentencing, defendant s attorney acknowledged an understanding that the court was disposed to impose a term of incarceration, and he reminded the court that this plea was done on the recommendation from the state for a one-year maximum. The prosecuting attorney expressed no recommendation at all, however. The court then imposed the maximum available term of three years. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Assignment of Error ¶12} The trial court as well as the state of Ohio violated the constitutional rights of the appellant when the plea agreement was not honored. {¶13} Defendant argues that her conviction should be reversed because the state breached the plea agreement when it failed to perform on its promise to recommend at sentencing that defendant receive an aggregate sentence of but one year on all of her pending cases. {¶14} When a prosecutor induces a defendant 4 to plead guilty based upon certain promises, the prosecutor has a duty to keep those promises. Santobello v. New York (1971), 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427; State v. Quinn (October 24, 2003), Miami App. No. 02-CA-54, 2003Ohio-5743. at the Therefore, when the prosecutor remained silent sentencing hearing and did not recommend that defendant receive an aggregate sentence of but one year, the state failed to perform on its promise and thereby breached the plea agreement. Under those circumstances the trial court ordinarily should either require specific performance by the state or allow defendant to withdraw the plea. Id. {¶15} The technical breach of promise notwithstanding, we see no basis to reverse. The court, as evidenced by its own statements at the plea colloquy, was fully aware of the Further, defendant s promise at state s counsel sentencing, promised reminded before the sentence recommendation. court was of the imposed. Therefore, the record reflects that when it imposed its sentence, the court did so with a full understanding of the position of the state with respect to a sentence. {¶16} necessary Implicit to that in any finding, finding is an of prejudice, inference that and the prosecutor s failure demonstrates that to the perform state s on the state s position 5 promise concerning the sentence the court should impose had changed, possibly as the result investigation of information reports that in were the three prepared for presentence the court. However, the inference is not one that is reasonable. Had the state s position changed, it is more likely that the state would have said so. Indeed, the more likely reason for the prosecutor s silence appears to be that the court, having been reminded of the state s position on the matter of a sentence, failed to simply call on acted the on that prosecutor understanding to repeat and the recommendation. {¶17} The state would have done better to express its recommendation, as it had promised it would. But, on this record, the defendant suffered no prejudice on account of the state s failure. Any error on the court s part in imposing the sentence is therefore harmless. {¶18} The assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. BROGAN and YOUNG, JJ., concur.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
