State v. Cassell
2017 Ohio 769
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Rodger Cassell was indicted in a multi-defendant, multi-count case and pleaded guilty to one Ohio RICO count (with a forfeiture specification) and one drug-possession count; the state alleged he personally received over $36,000 and agreed to forfeit listed property and money.
- The trial court accepted Cassell’s plea after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, sentenced him to nine years, and ordered forfeiture; other charges were dismissed per the plea agreement.
- Co-defendants Stevens and Bondurant later had their RICO convictions reversed by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Stevens, which produced a plurality opinion addressing whether the RICO monetary threshold ($500, now $1,000) must be satisfied by each individual or may be satisfied collectively by the enterprise.
- About five years after his plea, Cassell filed a post‑sentence motion to withdraw his RICO guilty plea, arguing Stevens clarified the statute in a way that showed his plea was uninformed and involuntary (manifest injustice).
- The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing; the court noted the indictment and plea colloquy charged Cassell individually with proceeds exceeding the statutory threshold (>$36,000) and concluded Stevens was a noncontrolling plurality.
- Cassell appealed; the appellate court affirmed, rejecting his assertions that Stevens required retroactive application, that the trial court abused discretion by not holding a hearing, and that his plea was involuntary or void.
Issues
| Issue | Cassell’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive application of State v. Stevens | Stevens clarified an ambiguity in the statute and should apply retroactively to his conviction | Stevens is a plurality and not controlling; trial court was not required to apply it retroactively and in fact charged Cassell as if the threshold applied to him individually | Court: Stevens is a plurality (not binding); no retroactivity required; trial court effectively applied the individual‑threshold theory because indictment/colloquy alleged >$36,000 against Cassell individually — assignment of error rejected |
| Motion to withdraw guilty plea (manifest injustice) | Plea was uninformed because the RICO monetary element was ambiguous at plea time; this warrants a post‑sentence withdrawal hearing | Record (indictment and plea colloquy) conclusively shows Cassell was charged personally with proceeds >$500, so no manifest injustice and no hearing required | Court: Denial without hearing proper; defendant failed to meet the extremely high manifest‑injustice standard |
| Voluntariness / Crim.R. 11 compliance | Plea void/involuntary because statute later clarified; he could not knowingly understand ambiguous law | Trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11; colloquy and record show understanding of charges and personal monetary exposure | Court: Plea was knowing, intelligent, voluntary; Crim.R. 11 satisfied and no prejudice shown |
| Reliance on other guilty pleas / enforceability of plea agreement | Trial court improperly relied on his separate drug plea in denying withdrawal of RICO plea | Trial court merely noted that, absent manifest injustice, the plea agreement remains enforceable — it did not deny withdrawal because of the other plea | Court: No error; trial court’s reliance was to preserve the plea agreement, not to penalize defendant for another guilty plea |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stevens, 11 N.E.3d 252 (Ohio 2014) (plurality addressing whether RICO monetary threshold must be met by each individual or may be collective)
- Ali v. State, 819 N.E.2d 687 (Ohio 2004) (general rule against retroactive application of new judicial rulings)
- State v. Ketterer, 18 N.E.3d 1199 (Ohio 2014) (exception: judicial clarification of statutory meaning applies to convictions that became final)
- State v. Smith, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (Ohio 1977) (burden on defendant to show manifest injustice to withdraw plea after sentencing)
- State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R. 11 standards for plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)