2021 Ohio 131
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- In April 2011 Bradford S. Davic pled guilty to four counts of rape (victim under 13), one count of importuning, and one count of gross sexual imposition and was sentenced to an aggregate term of 40 years to life with the four rape counts consecutive. The sentencing entry was journalized May 24, 2011.
- Davic appealed; this court affirmed his plea and consecutive sentences (Davic I).
- Over the next several years Davic filed multiple pro se motions and appeals challenging journalization of his Tier III sex-offender classification and post-release control; the appellate court remanded for a nunc pro tunc entry correcting journalization errors but repeatedly rejected claims that the judgment was void (Davic II–IV).
- On April 2, 2019 Davic filed a pro se “Motion to Vacate Void Plea Agreement,” asserting his plea was void because the trial court did not advise him at the plea hearing that he would receive consecutive rape sentences, be classified Tier III, or be subject to five years mandatory post-release control.
- The trial court construed the filing as a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw the plea, denied it without a hearing as barred by res judicata/untimely and failing to show manifest injustice, and denied a contemporaneous resentencing motion.
- The Tenth District affirmed, holding the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 plea-withdrawal motion after the conviction and sentence had been affirmed on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davic's plea was involuntary because the court failed to advise him that the rape counts carried mandatory consecutive sentences | State: prior appeal affirmed sentence; advisements were adequate; collateral attack barred | Davic: plea uninformed as to mandatory consecutive sentences under R.C. 2971.03(E); plea void | Denied — court lacked jurisdiction to revisit Crim.R. 32.1 claim after direct appeal; convictions not void |
| Whether plea was involuntary because the court failed to advise of Tier III sex-offender classification at plea hearing | State: Davic was informed at sentencing; nunc pro tunc corrected journalization; prior appeals rejected voidness | Davic: absence of personal advisement at plea renders plea void | Denied — prior appellate rulings control; not a basis to reopen plea post-appeal |
| Whether plea was involuntary because the court failed to advise of mandatory five-year post-release control | State: advisement was adequate at sentencing; issues already litigated | Davic: lack of personal advisement at plea made plea void | Denied — same jurisdictional bar and prior determinations apply |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a Crim.R. 32.1 post-sentence, post-appeal plea-withdrawal motion | State: Special Prosecutors controls — trial court lacks jurisdiction after affirmance; Crim.R.32.1 cannot be used to relitigate | Davic: Special Prosecutors inapplicable or superseded by Davis; his prior appeals were void so jurisdiction exists | Held for State — Special Prosecutors governs; Davis not extended to Crim.R.32.1; trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to determine a Crim.R. 32.1 plea-withdrawal motion after conviction and sentence have been affirmed on direct appeal)
- State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 (2011) (post-trial motions under the Criminal Rules can provide a safety net for defendants, but scope does not automatically extend to post-appeal plea-withdrawal motions)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (established "manifest injustice" standard governing post-sentence plea withdrawal)