State v. Battin
2018 Ohio 4811
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- James L. Battin filed a motion to reopen his appeal under App.R. 26(B) asserting a sentence/conviction defect.
- Battin argued he could not be convicted of felonious assault because (1) felonious assault is not a lesser-included offense of rape and (2) he was not indicted for felonious assault.
- The court’s prior opinion (State v. Battin) acknowledged those points but explained Battin pleaded guilty to felonious assault as part of a plea agreement.
- The court held a defendant may plead guilty to an offense not charged in the indictment; a guilty plea admits commission of the offense and obviates the need for grand-jury indictment or jury verdict on that offense.
- Battin’s App.R. 26(B) motion failed because he did not allege ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (the sole basis for reopening under App.R. 26(B)).
- The court also noted that, even if treated as a motion for reconsideration, Battin’s argument would fail on the merits for the reasons stated above.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction for an offense not charged in the indictment is void | State: conviction valid if based on a knowing guilty plea | Battin: conviction void because he was not indicted for felonious assault | Held: Valid — a defendant may plead guilty to an unindicted offense; plea admits commission of the crime |
| Whether felonious assault is a lesser-included offense of rape | State: not necessary to resolve because plea controls | Battin: felonious assault is not a lesser-included offense of rape, so conviction improper | Held: Court agreed felonious assault is not a lesser-included offense of rape, but that does not invalidate a guilty plea to felonious assault |
| Whether App.R. 26(B) reopening is available without an ineffective-assistance claim | State: App.R. 26(B) requires claim of ineffective appellate counsel | Battin: sought reopening without alleging ineffective assistance | Held: Denied — motion fails because App.R. 26(B) applies only to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel |
| Whether the motion could be treated as a motion for reconsideration and succeed on the merits | State: prior reasoning controls; plea admissibility defeats claim | Battin: urged reconsideration based on indictment/lesser-included issue | Held: Even recharacterized, the claim fails on the merits because a voluntary guilty plea to an unindicted offense is permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Stacy v. Van Coren, 18 Ohio St.2d 188 (Ohio 1969) (a defendant may plead guilty to an offense not charged in the indictment)
- State v. Jones, 83 Ohio App.3d 723 (Ohio App. 1992) (discussion that felonious assault is not a lesser-included offense of rape)
- State v. Evans, 122 Ohio St.3d 381 (Ohio 2009) (principles concerning lesser-included offenses)
- Ohio v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205 (Ohio 1988) (analysis related to lesser-included offenses)
- State v. Walls, 96 Ohio St.3d 437 (Ohio 2002) (an indictment is a grand jury finding of probable cause)