2022 Ohio 1503
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- In August 2004 Bradford pled guilty in five Cuyahoga County cases and received an aggregate 23-year prison term; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Bradford moved to withdraw his pleas in 2006 (denied) and filed numerous postconviction motions through 2011; in September 2011 the trial court resentenced him to properly impose postrelease control under State v. Fischer.
- This court affirmed the 2011 resentencing and denial of an earlier motion in State v. Bradford, 8th Dist. No. 97283 (Bradford I).
- On July 8, 2021 Bradford again moved to withdraw his guilty pleas in all five cases, arguing (1) counsel promised eligibility for judicial release after 13 years or a 20-year sentence that induced the plea, and (2) he was not properly advised about postrelease control.
- The trial court denied the 2021 motions on September 22, 2021; Bradford appealed, contending the court erred by (a) not holding a hearing and (b) failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing an evidentiary hearing on Bradford’s postsentence motion to withdraw pleas | Court: no hearing required if record and submitted evidence do not show entitlement to relief | Bradford: counsel promised early release/shorter term, so plea not knowing/voluntary and merits an evidentiary hearing | No error; record and affidavits insufficient to show manifest injustice, so no hearing required |
| Whether Bradford’s counsel’s alleged promises rendered the pleas involuntary | Court: promises by counsel outside the plea colloquy are vitiated if not on the record; defendant bears burden to show manifest injustice | Bradford: counsel told him he would be out in 13 years or promised a 20-year term, inducing the plea | Rejected: transcript contains no on-the-record promise; inconsistent post-hoc affidavits insufficient to show manifest injustice |
| Whether improper advisement or imposition of postrelease control vitiates the plea | Court: defendant was advised at plea hearing that postrelease control could apply and later was resentenced to impose correct term under Fischer | Bradford: he would not have pled if properly advised of postrelease control | Rejected: prior advisement and later Fischer-compliant resentencing defeat claim; not a basis to withdraw plea after many years |
| Whether trial court had to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying motion to withdraw plea | Crim.R.32.1 and precedent | Bradford: trial court should issue findings and conclusions | Rejected: Crim.R.32.1 does not require findings and conclusions; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (Ohio 1995) (res judicata bars later claims arising from same transaction)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (trial courts must properly impose and journal statutorily mandated postrelease-control terms)
- State ex rel. Chavis v. Griffin, 91 Ohio St.3d 50 (Ohio 2001) (Crim.R.32.1 does not require trial courts to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when ruling on a motion to withdraw plea)
- State v. Blatnik, 17 Ohio App.3d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (counsel’s erroneous advice about the sentence does not automatically constitute manifest injustice)