2021 Ohio 440
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In April 2016 Tevaughn Darling pleaded guilty to multiple counts: conspiracy, six drug-trafficking counts (one with a one-year firearm specification), having a weapon while under disability, possessing criminal tools, and tampering with evidence; several forfeiture specifications were also filed. The trial court imposed an aggregate prison term of 14 years plus fines, costs, and postrelease control.
- Darling appealed; this court affirmed his convictions, concluding the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 and ordering a nunc pro tunc entry to incorporate consecutive-sentence findings (State v. Darling, "Darling I").
- While his direct appeal was pending Darling filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief raising claims that his pleas were involuntary due to isolation and prosecutorial misconduct; the trial court denied that petition and Darling did not appeal that denial.
- After the direct appeal was resolved, Darling filed a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, alleging severe psychological distress from prolonged solitary confinement, coercion using family illness, and misleading advice from defense counsel about the aggregate sentence; he asserted supporting affidavits but submitted none.
- The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. On appeal the Eighth District affirmed, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion after the appellate affirmance, alternatively finding res judicata barred the claims, and noting Darling offered no evidentiary support for manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Darling) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion after the appellate court affirmed the convictions | Trial court lacked jurisdiction once convictions were affirmed on appeal | Trial court could consider and rule on the motion to correct a manifest injustice | No jurisdiction; trial court could not vacate a judgment that had been affirmed on appeal (Special Prosecutors) |
| Whether Darling’s claims are barred by res judicata | Claims were raised or could have been raised on direct appeal or in prior postconviction petition and are therefore barred | Claims are distinct/new and raise involuntariness and counsel misconduct meriting relief | Res judicata bars the claims because they were or could have been raised earlier |
| Whether Darling showed manifest injustice or ineffective assistance sufficient to withdraw plea | Allegations are conclusory and unsupported by affidavits/evidence; no reasonable likelihood of manifest injustice | Plea was involuntary due to duress, isolation, coerced family appeals, and counsel’s misleading sentencing advice | No manifest injustice shown; unsupported, self-serving allegations insufficient to warrant relief |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on the motion | No hearing required where allegations, even if accepted, do not show entitlement to relief and no evidentiary support was submitted | A hearing was necessary to develop facts and test claims of coercion and counsel misconduct | No abuse of discretion; hearing not required absent a reasonable likelihood that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Belmont Cty. Court of Common Pleas Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 378 N.E.2d 162 (1978) (trial court lacks power under Crim.R. 32.1 to vacate a judgment after an appellate affirmance)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448, 935 N.E.2d 9 (2010) (trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider postsentence withdrawal after appellate affirmance when remand was for a limited purpose)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977) (defendant bears burden of proving "manifest injustice" to withdraw plea after sentencing)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203, 699 N.E.2d 83 (1998) (definition/discussion of "manifest injustice" as a clear or openly unjust act)
- State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468, 129 N.E.3d 404 (2019) (appellate review of denial of postsentence plea-withdrawal motion is for abuse of discretion)