Opinion ID: 1834364
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accuracy of Records Showing Prior Convictions

Text: At the Rule 6.04 hearing, the State introduced a certified and exemplified pen packet from the State of Ohio showing the following convictions: (1) Complicity in aggravated robbery to which Handley plead guilty on April 22, 1975, and was sentenced to a term of 4 to 25 years; State's Exhibit # 1; (2) Burglary, to which Handley plead guilty on December 30, 1974, and was sentenced to a term of 5 to 15 years; State's Exhibit # 2; (3) Manslaughter, to which Handley plead guilty on February 19, 1969, and was sentenced to a term of 1 to 20 years, State's Exhibit # 3; and (4) Assault with intent to rob, arising out of the same incident as the manslaughter charge, to which Handley plead guilty on February 19, 1969, and was sentenced to a term of 1 to 15 years, to be served consecutively with the manslaughter sentence; State's Exhibit # 4. Handley objected to the use of these prior convictions. Following the arguments of counsel, the trial court deferred its findings on the prior convictions and recessed the hearing for the evening. The trial court articulated its reasons for taking this action: Well, I owe it to this defendant to be as accurate as I possibly can. I'm not going to sentence this man to jail forever on a defective conviction. I want to be very sure that he has all of his rights, substantive as well as procedural. The hearing was reconvened on June 17, 1987, at which time the trial court found that State's Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were certified and exemplified. The trial court gave no weight to State's Exhibit # 4, a computer printout, because it was unable to interpret the printout.