State v. Allen
2013 Ohio 258
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Michael Allen, Jr. pleaded guilty to 29 counts arising from sexual offenses with a minor (2004–2010).
- Indictment alleged 19 rapes, 3 gross sexual impositions, illicit use of a minor in nudity material, plus kidnapping, abduction, endangering children, intimidation, and tools possession.
- Trial court sentenced to 15 years total, with certain terms running consecutive and others concurrent, and classified Allen as a Tier I–III sex offender under the AWA.
- Allen moved to withdraw his plea the day before appealing; the trial court denied after the notice of appeal was filed.
- Appellate court held the AWA classification properly applied (Allen pled guilty to post-2008 offenses) but addressed jurisdictional issues, speedy-trial claims, weight of evidence, and consecutive-sentencing rulings.
- Court remanded to vacate its May 4, 2011 order denying the withdrawal motion; affirmed in part, reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AWA classification applied retroactively violated due process. | Allen argues Megan's Law should govern; AWA retroactive application improper. | Allen contends classification should reflect pre-AWA law (Megan's Law). | AWA classification proper; retroactivity concerns moot. |
| Whether plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered given AWA implications. | State argues plea sufficient under totality of circumstances. | Allen asserts misrepresentation about AWA consequences. | Plea valid; substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11 satisfies knowledge. |
| Whether trial court lacked jurisdiction to deny withdrawal motion after appeal filed. | State contends court retains authority after notice of appeal. | Allen argues lack of jurisdiction to rule during appeal. | Jurisdiction lacked once notice of appeal filed; motion to withdraw remanded as moot on other grounds. |
| Whether speedy-trial rights were violated. | State contends tolling appropriately counted days. | Allen claims excessive delays. | No speedy-trial violation; 113 days exhausted under tolling rules. |
| Whether consecutive-sentence rulings complied with Kalish and Mathis standards. | Court properly imposed consecutive terms within statutory framework. | Challenge to reasoning for consecutiveness. | Sentence not clearly contrary to law; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344 (2011) (authorizes SB10/regulatory framework and precludes retroactive application in some contexts)
- In re Bruce S., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-5696 (2012) (SB10 classification cannot be applied retroactively to certain pre-enactment offenses)
- State v. Rucker, 2012-Ohio-185 (2012) (indictment straddling enactment date supports AWA classification where post-enactment conduct shown)
- State v. Creed, 2012-Ohio-2627 (2012) (R.C. 2950 punitive; Crim.R. 11 compliance suffices for nonconstitutional aspects of registration)