State v. Davis
2017 Ohio 8740
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2006 Davis pleaded guilty to sexual battery (CR-05-468386) and was designated a sexually oriented offender under R.C. Chapter 2950, creating a statutory duty to register and notify the sheriff of any change of address.
- In October 2012 Davis was indicted in CR-12-566859 for failing to notify the sheriff of a change of address in violation of R.C. 2950.05(F)(1); an original furthermore clause alleging a prior similar conviction was later deleted and the indictment amended.
- Davis pled guilty in October 2012 to the amended third-degree felony charge; he received community control in May 2013, which was revoked in October 2014 and resulted in a three-year prison sentence.
- In June 2016 Davis filed a postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea claiming it was not knowing or voluntary (he believed he pled to a fourth-degree felony and complained about omission in the journal entry); the trial court denied that motion.
- In May 2017 Davis filed a second motion to withdraw his plea, arguing that the original 2006 postrelease-control entry was invalid and therefore the underlying duty to register could not support the 2012 conviction; the trial court denied relief and Davis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Davis's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis's postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion is barred by res judicata | The claim could have been raised earlier and is barred by res judicata because Davis had counsel and previously litigated a motion to withdraw | The postrelease-control defect in the 2006 case makes the 2012 conviction invalid; thus the plea should be withdrawn | Court: barred by res judicata; claim could have been raised earlier and is precluded |
| Whether Davis established "manifest injustice" to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea after sentence | The State: even if not barred, Davis fails to show a fundamental flaw or miscarriage of justice; the registration duty stems from the sexual-battery conviction independent of postrelease control | Davis: postrelease control in the 2006 case was void for journal-entry omission, so it cannot support the later failure-to-notify charge | Court: no manifest injustice; duty to register arises from the sexual-battery conviction itself and the 2012 charge is independent of postrelease control |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (foundational Ohio rule on res judicata in criminal cases)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (burden to show "manifest injustice" to withdraw plea after sentence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (definition of "manifest injustice" as a clear or openly unjust act)