State v. Carter
2016 Ohio 7240
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In December 2013 Dee Carter pled guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition (4th-degree felony) in exchange for dismissal of a rape count and an agreed 11‑month sentence; he received credit for 348 days already served.
- The trial court informed Carter of post-release control, ordered court costs, and designated him a Tier III sex offender.
- Carter directly appealed, arguing the trial court failed to ensure his plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and that counsel was ineffective; this court affirmed the conviction in 2014.
- In December 2015 Carter filed a pro se post‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting he has borderline intellectual functioning and SSI disability and therefore did not knowingly enter the plea.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding Carter had undergone two competency examinations that found him competent, the court was already aware of his SSI status, and Carter failed to show a manifest injustice.
- Carter appealed the denial of his post‑sentence motion; the appellate court affirmed, holding he failed to demonstrate manifest injustice or new evidence warranting withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carter may withdraw his guilty plea post‑sentence for manifest injustice based on mental capacity | State: plea was valid; prior competency findings and plea colloquy show no manifest injustice | Carter: borderline intellectual functioning and SSI status meant plea was not knowing, intelligent, voluntary | Denied — no manifest injustice; competency exams and plea colloquy support validity of plea |
| Whether plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily given | State: record affirmatively shows compliance with Crim.R./Civ.R. plea inquiries and protections | Carter: he said he was "slow" and later presented disability evidence suggesting incapacity to understand plea consequences | Denied — claim was previously raised on direct appeal and rejected; no new evidence demonstrating inability to enter valid plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (post‑sentence plea withdrawal permitted only in extraordinary cases)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (res judicata bars claims arising from same transaction)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata in criminal appeals prevents relitigation of issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)