State v. Carnail
2011 Ohio 3464
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Carnail appeals the trial court’s denial of his successive motions to withdraw guilty pleas to two counts of rape following a writ of mandamus directing resentencing for postrelease control.
- Initially Carnail withdrew a prior guilty plea; later he pled guilty again after suppression motions were denied and received two concurrent 10-years-to-life terms.
- He was advised postrelease control but the sentencing entry did not include postrelease-control requirements at that time.
- A mandamus writ compelled a sentencing entry compliant with postrelease-control provisions; resentencing followed with counsel asserting the plea should be withdrawn because of mandatory postrelease control and counsel misadvice.
- The trial court treated the motions as postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motions and denied them; Carnail challenged on grounds of Crim.R. 11 compliance, fines, counsel misinformation, and requested an evidentiary hearing.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding res judicata barred further Crim.R. 32.1 relief, the plea was knowingly voluntarily entered, and the evidentiary hearing was unwarranted;
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 claim. | Carnail | Carnail | Yes; res judicata bars the postsentence motion. |
| Whether the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent given postrelease-control instruction. | State | Carnail | Plea substantially complied; postrelease-control mandate satisfied by resentencing. |
| Whether the failure to include postrelease-control in the sentencing entry invalidates the plea. | State | Carnail | Offending portion corrected; not vacating entire sentence; standards of Fischer applied. |
| Whether Carnail was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw. | State | Carnail | No; insufficient corroborating evidence; hearing not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008-Ohio-509) (trial court must advise about mandatory postrelease control to sustain knowing plea)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (only offending portion of sentence corrected for postrelease control)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (Crim.R. 32.1 relief not to vacate entire sentence when postrelease control misapplied)
- State v. Singleton, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (2009-Ohio-6434) (pre-Fischer de novo sentencing for postrelease-control error)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for knowing guilty plea)
- State ex rel. Carnail v. McCormick, 126 Ohio St.3d 124 (2010-Ohio-2671) (mandamus requiring postrelease-control-compliant sentencing entry)
- State v. Johns, 8th Dist. No. 92627 (2010-Ohio-68) (Crim.R. 32.1 and res judicata considerations)
- State v. McGee, 8th Dist. No. 91638 (2009-Ohio-3374) (res judicata effects on successive postconviction motions)
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (Crim.R. 32.1 cannot vacate affirmed judgments)