State v. Aquila
2016 Ohio 5140
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1997 Aquila pleaded guilty to an amended count of murder and was sentenced to "life in prison without the possibility of parole for 15 years." Abuse-of-corpse charge dismissed.
- No direct appeal was filed. The sentencing entry omitted mandatory postrelease control; the court later corrected that omission.
- After serving 15 years, the parole board set a hearing; the trial court sent a written statement opposing any reduction or modification of Aquila’s sentence (i.e., opposed parole).
- In 2015 Aquila filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting manifest injustice because (1) his indefinite sentence made postrelease control improper and (2) the court breached the plea agreement by opposing parole.
- Appointed counsel later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence concerning postrelease control. The trial court granted correction (nunc pro tunc) removing postrelease control but denied the motion to withdraw the guilty plea for lack of manifest injustice.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the court’s opposition to parole did not alter the agreed sentence and that other asserted statutory errors did not amount to a manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying post-sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea (manifest injustice standard) | State: denial proper; defendant did not meet manifest injustice standard | Aquila: plea should be vacated because trial court’s parole opposition and statutory errors caused manifest injustice | Denial affirmed; defendant failed to show manifest injustice; postsentence plea withdrawal is discretionary and rare |
| Whether the trial court’s written opposition to parole modified the plea/sentence | State: parole opposition did not change the agreed sentence | Aquila: court’s opposition effectively altered the bargain because parole was his inducement | Court agreed the statement opposed parole but held it did not change or breach the agreed sentence (no promise by court to recommend parole) |
| Whether trial court’s citation to R.C. 5149.101(B) and omission of R.C. 2967.03 factual statement warranted plea withdrawal | State: statutory citation/omission harmless; no remedy that requires vacating plea | Aquila: court cited wrong statute and failed to include required facts for parole board, creating procedural error and prejudice | Errors in statutory citation and omission did not constitute manifest injustice; no remedy in statute that mandates plea withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (postsentence withdrawal of plea permissible only to correct manifest injustice)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (1998) (defines "manifest injustice" as a clear or openly unjust act)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (appellate review of plea-withdrawal rulings is for abuse of discretion)
- Blatnik v. State, 17 Ohio App.3d 201 (6th Dist. 1984) (postsentence plea withdrawal is addressed to trial court’s sound discretion)