2019 Ohio 2348
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2013 Richard Becraft pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery; the State dismissed a firearm specification and stipulated he did not have a firearm. He was sentenced to nine years and $2,000 restitution.
- Becraft filed multiple post-conviction motions and appeals asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, misadvice about sentence/eligibility for community control and judicial release, and that a polygraph agreement entitled him to dismissal.
- This court in State v. Becraft (Becraft I and Becraft II) vacated and modified parts of the sentence (including restitution) and found ineffective assistance at sentencing but not during plea-taking; remand followed for resentencing.
- On remand Becraft sought to withdraw his plea and later filed a November 20, 2017 pro se post-conviction petition asserting (among other things) counsel’s misadvice about a 3–5 year term, failure to investigate or obtain Kroger video, failure to provide polygraph results, and that the State breached a polygraph agreement.
- The trial court denied the 2017 petition without an evidentiary hearing as barred by res judicata. The appellate court affirmed, concluding the claims were previously litigated or could have been raised earlier and that no hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/Burden) | Defendant's Argument (Becraft) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Becraft’s 2017 post-conviction claims | Res judicata applies to bar claims already raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal/remand | Claims are new or were not previously litigated and thus not barred | Affirmed: res judicata bars the claims because they were decided earlier or could have been raised on remand |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the alleged polygraph agreement breach | No hearing required where petition and affidavits lack operative facts and claims are barred | A hearing is needed to explore whether the State breached the polygraph stipulation | Affirmed: no hearing; claim unsupported by new evidence and belied by prior record |
| Whether counsel’s alleged misadvice about sentence/community control/judicial release amounts to ineffective assistance warranting plea withdrawal | Trial court and prior opinions found no ineffective assistance during plea proceedings | Counsel falsely promised a 3–5 year term, probation eligibility, and judicial release, inducing the plea | Affirmed: ineffective-assistance claims are barred by res judicata and/or lack operative facts showing prejudice |
| Whether the restitution and polygraph-related claims survive collateral review | State relies on prior appellate resolution of restitution and polygraph issues | Becraft argues restitution exceeded loss and State breached polygraph agreement meriting relief | Affirmed: restitution and polygraph issues were decided in Becraft II and are barred by res judicata |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gondor, 860 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio 2006) (post-conviction relief is a collateral civil attack and court may gatekeep hearings)
- State v. Calhoun, 714 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio 1999) (trial court may dismiss petition without a hearing where petition and record do not show operative facts supporting relief)
- State v. DeVaughns, 84 N.E.3d 332 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (summary of post-conviction statutory scheme and narrow scope of relief)
- State v. Becraft, 89 N.E.3d 218 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (appellate decision resolving restitution and polygraph issues; law of the case on those points)