2011 Ohio 5776
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Crangle pleaded guilty to rape and received a life sentence in Summit County Common Pleas Court.
- This Court affirmed Crangle’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal.
- Two years later Crangle moved to withdraw his plea, claiming the plea colloquy failed to inform him of post-release control.
- The trial court corrected the post-release control issue under R.C. 2929.19, and denied Crangle’s motion to withdraw his plea.
- This Court held it lacked authority to entertain Crangle’s motion under State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978).
- There is discussion of Sarkozy and Davis to clarify how post-appeal/post-trial motions are treated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to hear Crangle's Crim.R. 32.1 motion | Crangle argues the court lacked Crim.R. 32.1 authority after appellate affirmation. | Special Prosecutors framework controls; trial court loses jurisdiction after affirmance. | No authority; court lacked jurisdiction to consider motion. |
| Effect of Sarkozy and Davis on Special Prosecutors applicability | Sarkozy requires remand to cure plea colloquy failure; Davis narrows posttrial motion scope. | Special Prosecutors remains controlling; Davis does not broaden post-sentencing plea withdrawals. | Special Prosecutors controls; Crangle not entitled to withdrawal; Sarkozy not controlling here; Davis does not alter result. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (plea court must advise on postrelease control; failure requires vacatur)
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain post-appeal withdrawal motions)
- State v. Davis, Ohio St.3d __, 2011-Ohio-5028 (2011) (modifies Special Prosecutors; posttrial motions jurisdiction preserved for new issues)