Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Kouts

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Sandusky

May 19, 2017

State of Ohio Appellee
v.
Andrew J. Kouts Appellant

         Trial Court No. 15 CR 902

          Loretta Riddle, for appellant.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT

          MAYLE, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Andrew Kouts, appeals the April 4, 2016 judgment of the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas sentencing him to an aggregate sentence of 198 months in prison. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand to the trial court.

         I. Background

         {¶ 2} On October 8, 2015, Kouts was indicted on two counts of rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(1)(b) and five counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(1). On February 25, 2016, Kouts pleaded guilty to the lesser offenses of two counts of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(B) and five counts of pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor in violation of R.C. 2907.322(A)(5). On April 4, 2016, the trial court sentenced him to 54 months in prison on each of the gross sexual imposition convictions and 18 months on each of the pandering convictions, which the court ordered to run consecutively, giving him an aggregate sentence of 198 months-or 16 years and six months-in prison.

         {¶ 3} Kouts appeals the trial court's judgment, asserting two assignments of error:

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
APPELLANT'S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY AND KNOWINGLY [sic] WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH CRIM.R. 11 BY FAILING TO INFORM APPELLANT OF ALL OF THE PUNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS PLEA.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II
APPELLANT RECEIVED CONSTITUTIONALLY INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HIS TRIAL COUNSEL DID NOT REQUEST A PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION.

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Knowing and Voluntary Plea

         {¶ 4} In his first assignment of error, Kouts contends that his plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily because the trial court failed to inform him of all the restrictions and requirements inherent ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.