State v. Blaylock
2011 Ohio 4865
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Blaylock pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor as part of a plea deal; there were no sentence or sexual-offender-classification promises.
- Trial court accepted the plea on February 11, 2005, sentenced Blaylock to the minimum term of one year, and classified him as a sexually oriented offender on April 15, 2005.
- Blaylock completed his sentence and was released around January 2006.
- On November 26, 2007, Blaylock moved to withdraw his guilty plea; an evidentiary hearing occurred, and the trial court denied relief in April 2008, ruling no conflict of interest or ineffective assistance.
- This court previously affirmed the denial of the 2007 motion in 2009, holding no deficient performance by counsel, no conflict of interest by the judge, and no impact from Blaylock’s prior employment.
- In 2010 Blaylock sought to withdraw again, which the trial court denied without a hearing; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-sentence motion to withdraw plea was properly denied without a hearing. | Blaylock contends manifest injustice warranted withdrawal and a hearing. | State contends no manifest injustice and the court acted within Crim.R. 32.1 and prior precedent. | Denied; no manifest injustice and no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for not informing Blaylock about the warrant-affidavit omission. | Blaylock argues omission undermined knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea and counsel failed to disclose. | State asserts omission was not material or intentional and counsel’s performance was not deficient. | Denied; omission not material or prejudicial; no ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 428 U.S. 154 (1978) (Franks inquiry limited; omissions rarely trigger a hearing)
- Mays v. City of Dayton, 134 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 1998) (omission in warrant affidavit; rare basis for Franks inquiry)
- Kadwell v. U.S., 315 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1963) (pre-sentence withdrawal policy and concerns about retraction)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (manifest-injustice standard; post-sentence withdrawal extraordinary)
- State v. Powell, 188 Ohio App.3d 232 (2010) (Crim.R. 32.1 manifest-injustice standard; abuse of discretion review)