State v. Darget
2013 Ohio 603
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Darget pleaded guilty to trafficking in drugs and tampering with evidence after plea negotiations, with remaining charges dismissed.
- The trial court sentenced him to five years for trafficking and four years for tampering, to run consecutively for a nine-year aggregate term.
- Darget moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1; the court overruled, and he appealed.
- Darget argues the plea was not voluntary, failed to fully advise rights waived, and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, among other claims.
- The court’s ruling focused on whether the Crim.R. 32.1 motion showed manifest injustice; the procedural history involved multiple motions and unclear journal entries.
- On appeal, the court held the issues not raised in the January 23, 2012 motion were forfeited, and denied several claims as improperly raised or outside the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw was rightly denied | Darget contends plea was involuntary and rights were not fully advised. | State argues manifest injustice not shown and waivers apply; counsel conflicts argued outside record. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; issues not raised in the motion are forfeited. |
| Whether denial of judicial release was properly appealed | Darget sought judicial release despite his claims on appeal. | No motion for judicial release appeared in the record; not properly before court. | Issue not properly before us; overruled. |
| Whether there was ineffective assistance of counsel and related relief under post-conviction or HB86 | Darget alleges ineffective assistance of counsel during change of plea and seeks post-conviction/HB86 relief. | IAC claims improperly raised under Crim.R. 32.1 when based on matters outside the record; must be raised in post-conviction. | No error; issues not properly before court under Crim.R. 32.1; thin record improper for IAC claims. |
| Whether the trial court erred by not ruling on a prior motion and related relief | November 22, 2011 motion pending; trial court delay merits relief. | Pending motion not decided; writ of procedendo appropriate remedy if necessary. | Claims addressed only to January 23, 2012 motion; November motion not properly before; procedendo remedy discussed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (2002-Ohio-3993) (manifest injustice standard for post-sentencing plea withdrawal)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (Crim.R. 32.1 standard; timing considerations for withdraw)
- State v. Whitaker, 2011-Ohio-6923 (4th Dist. 2011) (strong standard for manifest injustice in post-plea relief)
- State v. Dotson, 4th Dist. No. 03CA53 (2004-Ohio-2768) (definition of manifest injustice; appellate abuse of discretion standard)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (1998) (high threshold for manifest injustice in plea withdrawal)
- State ex rel. CNG Fin. Corp. v. Nadel, 111 Ohio St.3d 149 (2006-Ohio-5344) (writ of procedendo as remedy for court delay)
- State ex rel. Weiss v. Hoover, 84 Ohio St.3d 530 (1999) (procedural relief when a court unnecessarily delays judgment)