State v. Churchill
2018 Ohio 1031
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Appellant Joseph P. Churchill was indicted (Aug. 7, 2014) on multiple felony counts (breaking & entering, possessing criminal tools, theft, failure to comply). Some counts were later dismissed as part of a plea agreement.
- Churchill pled not guilty (June 22, 2015), then changed his plea to guilty to two counts of breaking & entering (5th-degree felonies) and one count of failure to comply (4th-degree felony) on Aug. 27, 2015.
- He was sentenced Sept. 26, 2015 to a total of three years, to run consecutively and consecutive to an unrelated sentence; the case was remanded and re‑sentenced on March 28, 2017 to correct post‑release control language.
- Churchill filed multiple motions to withdraw his guilty plea asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate, failure to move to dismiss on speedy‑trial grounds, and incorrect legal advice). The trial court denied the first motion (July 26, 2017) and later denied a second, substantively similar motion (Sept. 18, 2017).
- This appeal challenges the denial of the second motion to withdraw the guilty plea; the trial court dismissed it under the doctrine of res judicata. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Churchill) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by dismissing the second motion to withdraw the guilty plea as barred by res judicata | The second motion repeats claims that were raised or could have been raised earlier; res judicata bars successive motions | The court should consider the new motion on its merits; his plea was involuntary due to trial counsel’s ineffective assistance and a speedy‑trial violation | Court: Dismissal under res judicata affirmed — second motion barred as repetitive |
| Whether Churchill’s guilty plea was not knowingly/intelligently made because trial counsel failed to investigate and should have moved to dismiss for speedy‑trial/due‑process violations | N/A (State opposes relief and relies on res judicata) | Counsel was ineffective; indictment/charges were invalid due to a 315‑day delay in arrest while Churchill was incarcerated elsewhere, so plea was involuntary | Court: Issue moot/waived. Even if considered, Churchill waived appellate review by failing to present the argument properly below; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175, 226 N.E.2d 104 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars claims that were raised or could have been raised against a final judgment of conviction)