State v. Chandler
2011 Ohio 4387
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- State v. Chandler, 2011-Ohio-4387, Fifth Appellate District of Ohio.
- Appellant William B. Chandler appeals a denial of his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
- Appellant pleaded guilty in 2007 to Escape; the trial court sentenced him to four years of community control and reserved a five-year prison term upon violation.
- The underlying 2005 domestic violence conviction imposed mandatory post-release control for up to three years, but the sentencing entry did not clearly articulate the post-release-control terms.
- In 2009 Chandler was convicted of violating community control; in 2010 he moved to withdraw his 2007 escape plea, arguing the 2005 post-release-control language was void.
- The trial court denied the motion, invoking res judicata; the majority affirms, the dissenting judge would permit withdrawal despite res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars withdrawal of a guilty plea when post-release control was void. | Chandler argues void post-release control allows withdrawal. | State contends res judicata bars filings not raised earlier. | Res judicata bars the withdrawal claim. |
| Whether a misstatement about post-release control requires vacating the plea under Crim.R. 11. | Chandler claims insufficient Crim.R. 11 compliance invalidates plea. | State argues substantial compliance suffices; no prejudice shown. | Plea upheld; misstatement does not void the plea. |
| Whether Fischer limits reliance on void sentences in post-judgment challenges. | Fischer allows review of void sentences; voidness can be attacked. | Res judicata still applies to other merits; voidness is limited. | Fischer governs; res judicata applies to merits, not voidness. |
| Whether Edwards’s dissenting view would reach a different outcome on res judicata. | Dissent would allow withdrawal given void sentence. | Majority adheres to res judicata bar. | Dissent would reverse; majority ruling stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200, 909 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio 2009) (mandatory post-release control language must be stated; voidness if omitted or misstated)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86, 2008-Ohio-509 (Ohio 2008) (complete failure to inform about post-release control requires vacating plea)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 893 N.E.2d 462, 2008-Ohio-3748 (Ohio 2008) (substantial compliance test for non-constitutional rights at plea)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92, 942 N.E.2d 332, 2010-Ohio-6238 (Ohio 2010) (void sentence review does not preclude other meritorious challenges; res judicata limits but does not preclude voidness review)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94, 868 N.E.2d 961, 2007-Ohio-3250 (Ohio 2007) (guides on sentencing and post-release control)