State v. Barnett
2016 Ohio 8070
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2009 William J. Barnett pleaded guilty to first‑degree Rape (R.C. 2907.02) and Aggravated Burglary (R.C. 2911.11) related to a 2006 incident; DNA evidence tied him to the crime. The state nolled related counts/specifications in exchange for plea and recommended consecutive 10‑year terms, which the trial court imposed in May 2009.
- Barnett appealed; this court affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction.
- Barnett filed a post‑conviction petition in 2009 alleging ineffective assistance and other defects; the trial court denied it and Barnett did not appeal that denial.
- In 2015 Barnett (pro se) filed multiple motions in the trial court: motion to withdraw guilty plea, motions for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (including DNA issues), and motions to suppress/dismiss DNA evidence.
- The trial court denied all 2015 motions. Barnett appealed the denial; the Fifth District considered whether he was entitled to a hearing and whether res judicata or procedural bars applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Post‑sentence withdrawal of guilty plea (hearing) | State: trial court correctly denied because Barnett failed to show newly discovered evidence or manifest injustice | Barnett: DNA material was newly discovered and shows innocence; court should hold a hearing on plea withdrawal | Denied. Barnett failed to show evidence was newly discovered; no abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal without hearing |
| 2) Motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence | State: plea waived right to a new trial; court lacked jurisdiction to rule on new‑trial motion after guilty plea | Barnett: DNA issues and withheld evidence justify new trial | Denied. Guilty plea waived right to new trial; motions for new trial improper and barred by res judicata |
| 3) Challenge to voluntariness of plea / ineffective assistance | State: issues were raised (or could have been raised) on direct appeal and in post‑conviction petition; res judicata bars relitigation | Barnett: plea was not knowing/voluntary and counsel misled him | Denied. Claims are barred by res judicata and previously addressed on appeal/post‑conviction |
| 4) Alleged DNA contamination and need for evidentiary hearing | State: contamination is a weight/credibility issue for trial; evidence was available before plea | Barnett: minute DNA quantities and lab issues could show contamination and require hearing | Denied. Contamination affects weight, not admissibility; issues were available earlier and are barred by res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962) (plea of guilty is a serious choice that waives trial rights)
- United v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (guilty plea constitutes admission of guilt of the charged crime)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (post‑sentence withdrawal of plea permitted only to correct manifest injustice)
- State v. Hooks, 92 Ohio St.3d 83 (2001) (appellate courts may not consider facts outside the trial record)
- State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (1978) (same prohibition on adding matters outside the record)
- State v. Richey, 64 Ohio St.3d 353 (1992) (possibility of DNA contamination goes to weight, not admissibility)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation of claims raised or available at trial or on direct appeal)