State v. Brown
2017 Ohio 2854
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Jeffrey L. Brown was indicted in 2013 on multiple drug counts and pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree felony drug trafficking; sentenced to six months.
- Brown appealed and this court affirmed the conviction in 2014.
- On May 5, 2016, Brown moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court denied that motion on May 16, 2016.
- While the appeal from that denial was pending, allegations of police misconduct arose; Brown filed a second motion to withdraw and the state moved to vacate and dismiss the conviction.
- The trial court granted the subsequent motions, vacated the guilty plea, and dismissed the charges with prejudice (December 29, 2016, and re-entered April 16, 2017 after remand), rendering the earlier appeal moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the trial court erred in denying Brown’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel | The state opposed withdrawal and maintained the trial court properly denied the motion | Brown argued counsel was ineffective, warranting withdrawal | Moot — subsequent grant of withdrawal/vacatur renders this claim nonjusticiable |
| 2. Whether the state violated Brady/Crim.R. 16 by withholding exculpatory evidence before plea | The state denied Brady/Rule 16 violations and opposed withdrawal | Brown alleged failure to disclose material exculpatory evidence deprived him of due process | Moot — claim rendered academic by vacatur and dismissal with prejudice |
| 3. Whether the trial court acted biased/vindictive in denying withdrawal due to state procedures | The state maintained the court’s denial was appropriate and procedures were followed | Brown claimed bias and procedural waiver by the state obligating relief | Moot — no live controversy after later vacatur/dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (remand required to give trial court jurisdiction to act while an appeal is pending)
- Wheeling Corp. v. Columbus, 147 Ohio App.3d 460 (2001) (defining mootness where the dispute is finally resolved)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process)