State v. Daver
2017 Ohio 8862
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant James Davner was indicted on multiple sexual-offense counts after DNA linked him to the victim; he retained private counsel Margolis and paid substantial fees.
- Numerous pretrials occurred; Margolis did not file motions, interview witnesses, or retain an investigator, and admitted he was not prepared to try the May 24 trial.
- On the morning of trial, the state offered two plea packages; Margolis gave Davner the offers shortly before trial and left him a brief period (minutes to an hour) to decide.
- Davner pled guilty to amended counts (felonious assault, abduction, gross sexual imposition) with the non-merger of counts, then was sentenced to an aggregate 6 years, 10 months.
- Post‑sentence Davner moved to withdraw his pleas, arguing ineffective assistance (misinformation about sentencing and judicial release, counsel unprepared), and the trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.
- The appellate court reversed: it vacated the pleas and remanded, finding pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered given the totality of circumstances (short decision time, incomplete judicial-release advice, counsel unprepared, and limited understanding of charges/effects).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Davner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postsentence plea withdrawal is warranted for manifest injustice | Deny withdrawal; trial court complied with Crim.R.11 and defendant’s testimony is insufficient to overcome presumption of valid plea | Pleas induced by ineffective assistance and misinformation; manifest injustice requires vacation | Court: Grant withdrawal — manifest injustice shown; pleas vacated and case remanded |
| Whether counsel’s inaccurate sentencing prediction vitiates plea | Prediction alone is hopeful, not a promise; does not invalidate plea | Counsel told Davner he would likely get probation or short term and judicial release within six months; that induced plea | Court: Erroneous sentence prediction alone insufficient to invalidate plea; harmless here because court advised maximums; but other factors mattered |
| Whether counsel’s advice about judicial release was inaccurate and material | State disputes materiality; no evidence trial court misadvised on record | Counsel allegedly told Davner he’d be eligible for early judicial release (after ~6 months) and failed to explain multi‑year ineligibility rule for 5+ year sentences | Court: Counsel provided incomplete/misleading info re: judicial release; misinformation was material and likely changed decision — supports withdrawal |
| Whether counsel’s lack of trial preparation coerced plea | State: defense counsel could have sought continuance; defendant chose plea | Counsel admitted not prepared to try; left defendant little time to decide on plea offers given on trial morning | Court: Counsel’s lack of preparation, combined with compressed decision window, supports finding plea was involuntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard for counsel performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (application of Strickland to guilty-plea context)
- Xie v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (plea-withdrawal ineffective-assistance framework in Ohio)
- Engle v. Isaac, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary; plea invalidated by incorrect legal advice)
- Smith v. State, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (standard for postsentence withdrawal of plea to correct manifest injustice)
- Nero v. State, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (substantial compliance with Crim.R.11 means defendant subjectively understands plea implications)