State v. Clark
2021 Ohio 2531
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- In Nov. 2014 Clark was indicted on 11 counts of rape of a child under 13; allegations covered abuse from 2011–2014.
- In Feb. 2015 Clark entered an Alford plea to five amended counts of sexual battery in exchange for dismissal of six counts and a joint recommendation of a 25‑year mandatory sentence and Tier III sex‑offender classification.
- Clark filed multiple post‑conviction motions alleging newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance; the trial court and this court previously addressed and rejected those claims.
- In June 2020 Clark moved under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his plea, claiming medical records newly discovered in 2020 contradicted the victim and proved innocence.
- The trial court ordered counsel to show what discovery had been provided, received the materials under seal, concluded the records were not newly discovered and that counsel had reviewed them with Clark, recharacterized the motion as an R.C. 2953.21 petition (an error), and denied relief as untimely and not showing manifest injustice.
- On appeal the Second District affirmed: although the court erred in recasting the motion, denial of plea withdrawal was correct because Clark failed to show manifest injustice or ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly recharacterized Clark’s post‑sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion as an R.C. 2953.21 post‑conviction petition | Trial court may recast irregular filings to apply correct legal standard | Recharacterization was improper and deprived Clark of the correct forum | Recasting was error (R.C. 2953.21 and Crim.R. 32.1 are independent) but the error was harmless because denial on manifest‑injustice grounds was correct |
| Whether denial of plea withdrawal was a manifest injustice based on allegedly withheld medical records | Clark: counsel (and State) withheld exculpatory medical records; had he known, he would not have pled | State and counsel: records were provided to counsel and reviewed with Clark; no newly discovered evidence; Clark accepted plea benefits | Denial affirmed: no manifest injustice; record shows counsel reviewed records with Clark and Alford plea waived most challenges |
| Whether the State had a duty to provide Clark’s own medical records | Clark: State withheld his medical records | State: no obligation to provide defendant’s own records; defense could obtain them by diligence | Court: State not required to produce records readily obtainable by defendant; Brady not implicated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (pre‑sentence motions to withdraw pleas should be freely allowed)
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (2002) (R.C. 2953.21 and Crim.R. 32.1 are independent; courts may not recast a Crim.R. 32.1 post‑sentence withdrawal as an R.C. 2953.21 petition)
- State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (2008) (courts may recast irregular motions in some circumstances but not where statutes or rules provide independent remedies)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in Ohio)
- John A. Baker Co. v. Jedson Eng., Inc., 121 N.E.3d 788 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) (an appellate court will affirm a decision that reaches the correct result even if the trial court used erroneous reasoning)