State v. Colon
2017 Ohio 8478
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Julio Colon was indicted on multiple rape and kidnapping counts for allegedly molesting two mentally disabled brothers; he pled guilty to three counts of sexual battery under R.C. 2907.03(A)(2) and the remaining counts were dismissed.
- After sentencing to three consecutive five-year terms and Tier III sex-offender classification, Colon appealed; this court affirmed conviction and sentence in Colon I, remanding only on court costs.
- While his direct appeal was pending Colon filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and constitutional defects in R.C. 2907.03(A)(2) (facial and as-applied).
- The trial court denied the motion without a hearing and denied reconsideration after the appeal concluded; Colon appealed that denial.
- The appellate court applied the manifest-injustice standard for post-sentence plea withdrawal, reviewed Strickland ineffective-assistance framework, and considered both standing and merits for facial and as-applied constitutional attacks on R.C. 2907.03(A)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by denying motion to withdraw plea without a hearing | Trial court properly denied because Colon failed to show manifest injustice | Colon argued counsel was ineffective and statute unconstitutional, requiring a hearing | Denial affirmed; no hearing required because allegations, accepted as true, did not warrant withdrawal |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance that rendered plea unknowing/invalid | State: plea waived most claims; no deficient performance shown and Strickland not met | Colon: counsel failed to advise re: constitutional defects in R.C. 2907.03(A)(2) and victims’ impairment status | Court found no deficient performance or prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim fails as a matter of law |
| As-applied challenge to R.C. 2907.03(A)(2) (standing and merit) | State: Colon lacks standing and statute applied here is constitutional | Colon: statute impermissibly criminalizes consensual conduct by impaired persons; victims might not be impaired | Court questioned Colon’s standing to raise victims’ privacy rights; plea admissions and unfavorable independent exams defeated as-applied claim |
| Facial due process / equal protection challenge to R.C. 2907.03(A)(2) | State: statute presumptively constitutional and targets unconscionable advantage situations | Colon: statute infringes due process and equal protection by criminalizing conduct where purported consent exists | Court rejected facial challenges, distinguishing Mole; upheld statute’s mens rea (knowingly) and legislative purpose to prevent unconscionable advantage |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (guilty plea does not bar challenges to state’s power to prosecute)
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (strong presumption of statute constitutionality)
- State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507 (upholding portions of R.C. 2907.03 against due process/equal protection attacks)
- State v. Mole, 149 Ohio St.3d 215 (striking R.C. 2907.03(A)(13) as unconstitutional due to strict liability)
- State v. Greathouse, 158 Ohio App.3d 135 (guilty plea is admission of indictment facts)
- Blatnik v. State, 17 Ohio App.3d 201 (trial court has discretion to deny post-sentence plea-withdrawal motions without hearing)