State v. Clark
80 N.E.3d 1251
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- William H. Clark was indicted on multiple counts of rape of a child; he entered an Alford plea to five amended counts of sexual battery and received a joint, agreed 25-year sentence.
- Six months after pleading, Clark filed a pro se motion titled "Motion for New Trial Pursuant to Criminal Rule 33(A)(6)," asserting newly discovered evidence and a Brady violation: that the victim told Clark’s wife in November 2014 the accusations were false.
- Clark attached two affidavits: one from his wife (relating the victim’s alleged recantation and that a caseworker was told) and one from Clark (claiming innocence, Brady nondisclosure, and that his plea was coerced).
- The trial court dismissed the Crim.R. 33 motion without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning Crim.R. 33 does not apply after a guilty plea. The court did not treat the filing as a postconviction petition.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court should have considered the filing as a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 and then decide whether an evidentiary hearing was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Crim.R. 33 motion was a proper vehicle to challenge a conviction entered by plea | State: Crim.R. 33 applies only to trials (trial court relied on this) | Clark: He filed Crim.R. 33 but asked court to treat it as postconviction relief if Crim.R. 33 was inapplicable | Held: Crim.R. 33 is not available after a guilty plea; the court erred by dismissing solely on that basis |
| Whether the filing should be recast as a petition for postconviction relief (R.C. 2953.21) | State: (implicit) dismissal appropriate since Crim.R. 33 inapplicable | Clark: Motion invoked R.C. 2953.21(A) as alternative relief and alleged constitutional Brady claim supported by affidavits | Held: The appellate court held the trial court should have reviewed the motion as a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 |
| Whether Clark was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition alleging Brady nondisclosure and newly discovered evidence | State: Affidavits may be insufficient; credibility and Calhoun factors can defeat hearing | Clark: Affidavits and supporting facts show substantive grounds for relief and warrant a hearing | Held: The appellate court did not resolve credibility; it remanded for the trial court to apply R.C. 2953.21(C)/(E) and Calhoun factors and then decide whether a hearing is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence to defendant)
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (2002) (courts must categorize irregular motions and may recast them where appropriate)
- State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (2008) (limits on recasting motions; some remedies stand independently)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (standards for postconviction affidavits, credibility factors, and when hearing is required)
- State v. Frohner, 150 Ohio St. 53 (1948) (a guilty plea precludes a subsequent motion for new trial)
- State v. Kapper, 5 Ohio St.3d 36 (1983) (petitioner must present sufficient operative facts in affidavits to demonstrate a cognizable constitutional claim)