State v. White
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. White, 155 Ohio App.3d 215, 2003-Ohio-5816.] [Cite as State v. White, 155 Ohio App.3d 215, 2003-Ohio-5816.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 82913 THE STATE OF OHIO, : : : : APPELLEE, ACCELERATED JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION v. : : FREDERICK WHITE, : : APPELLANT. : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 30, 2003 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-432712 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Matthew T. Norman, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney For Defendant-Appellant: Patrick S. Lavelle, 2 ANN DYKE, Judge. {¶1} This appeal is before the court on the accelerated docket pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.App.R. 11.1. Defendant-appellant Frederick White ("appellant ) appeals from the judgment of the trial court, which, after accepting the appellant s guilty plea, sentenced him to a term of six months incarceration for possession of drugs. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. {¶2} On January 23, 2003, appellant was indicted on one count of possession of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.11. On April 22, 2003, appellant entered a guilty plea to the indictment. Appellant now appeals, asserting a sole assignment of error for our review: The appellant s guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the trial court, prior to taking the plea, failed to advise appellant that he was subject to bad time under O.R.C. 2943.032. {¶3} R.C. 2967.11, which outlines the Parole Board s authority to extend a stated prison term for certain violations of prison rules, was held unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court as a violation of the doctrine of the separation of powers. State ex rel. Bray v. Russell (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 132, syllabus. The court determined that the bad-time statute set up a scheme whereby the Parole Board acted as judge, prosecutor, and jury, for an action that could be prosecuted as a felony in a court of law, and 3 that trying, committed convicting, while in executive power. and prison is sentencing not an inmates appropriate for crimes exercise of The Supreme Court further noted that if an offense was serious enough to constitute an additional crime, and the prison authorities did not feel that administrative sanctions were sufficient (i.e., isolation, loss of privileges), the prison authorities should bring additional charges in a court of law. decision of the unconstitutional, Supreme renders the Court to lack of find R.C. notification The 2967.11 of such provision under R.C. 2943.032(A) and (B) moot. Judgment affirmed. MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, P.J., and PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J., 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.
