2013 Ohio 1690
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Curtis pleaded guilty in 2007 to felonious assault and attempted kidnapping, with the State dismissing related gun- and other charges in exchange for his cooperation.
- The court sentenced Curtis to a combined 16 years, based in part on Curtis’s alleged noncompliance with the ACE Task Force agreement and his lack of remorse.
- Curtis later moved to withdraw his plea; his first Crim.R. 32.1 motion (to withdraw/ vacate plea) was denied after a hearing in 2008.
- We previously affirmed the trial court’s denial of Curtis’s post-conviction petition and rejected arguments that the plea was involuntary or that counsel was ineffective.
- In July 2011 Curtis filed a second motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting ineffective assistance for counsel being unprepared for sentencing; the trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata.
- Curtis appeals, arguing res judicata does not bar the current motion and that new evidence (recordings) supports a withdrawal; the appellate court ultimately agrees that res judicata bars the motion and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars the second motion to withdraw plea | Curtis argues the two motions allege different ineffective-assistance claims not barred by res judicata. | State argues the claims are the same underlying issue and could have been raised earlier. | Barred by res judicata |
| If not barred, would ineffective-assistance claim permit withdrawal | Curtis contends counsel was unprepared for sentencing, causing the longer sentence. | Counsel's preparation or lack thereof at sentencing does not affect the voluntariness of the plea already entered. | Moot; even if allowed, not sufficient for withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ulery, 2011-Ohio-4549 (2d Dist. Clark No. 2010 CA 89) (res judicata bars Crim.R. 32.1 motions that could have been raised on appeal)
- State v. Madrigal, 2011-Ohio-798 (6th Dist. Lucas Nos. L-10-1142, L-10-1143) (claims in motion to withdraw plea barred if could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Ketterer, 2010-Ohio-3831 (Ohio Sup. Ct.) (bar for claims in Crim.R. 32.1 motions)
- State v. Hennis, 165 Ohio App.3d 66 (2d Dist.) (ineffectiveness claims outside the record may be raised in post-conviction relief)
- State v. Harden, 2010-Ohio-3343 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23617) (outside-record claims permit post-conviction review)
- State v. Wynn, 131 Ohio App.3d 725 (8th Dist.) (hearing on post-sentence motion to withdraw not required if facts don’t support withdrawal)
- State v. Boshko, 139 Ohio App.3d 827 (12th Dist.) (hearing on withdrawal of plea circumstances)
- State v. Nathan, 99 Ohio App.3d 722 (3d Dist.) (hearing requirements for withdrawal based on alleged ineffective assistance)