State v. Davner
100 N.E.3d 1247
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2017Background
- Defendant James Davner was indicted for multiple sexual offenses after DNA linked him to the victim; he retained Attorney Daniel Margolis and paid significant fees.
- Multiple pretrials occurred; Margolis did not file motions, hire an investigator, or substantially prepare for trial; trial was set for May 24, 2016.
- On the morning of trial, Margolis presented two plea offers on an index card; Davner was given a short period (minutes to an hour) to decide and accepted a plea that amended counts and left others nolled.
- Plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11 as to constitutional waivers and potential maximum penalties; court did not explain offense elements or judicial-release mechanics on the record.
- Davner was sentenced to an aggregate 6 years, 10 months; he moved post-sentence to withdraw his pleas alleging ineffective assistance (misinformation about likely sentence and judicial release, and counsel unprepared for trial). Trial court denied the motion; appellate court reversed, vacated pleas and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Davner) | Defendant's Argument (State/Margolis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postsentence plea withdrawal is warranted for manifest injustice based on ineffective assistance of counsel | Margolis pressured him into pleading by being unprepared for trial, misinforming him about likely sentence and eligibility for judicial release, and giving him inadequate time to decide | Plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11; counsel gave reasonable sentencing estimates and acted strategically; defendant’s testimony is self-serving | Reversed: Court found manifest injustice — pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily made due to counsel’s lack of preparation, short decision window, incomplete advice on judicial release, and limited understanding of charges |
| Whether inaccurate sentence predictions by counsel invalidate a plea | Counsel told him he would "most likely" get probation or minimal time, inducing plea | Counsel’s prediction was an educated estimate, not a promise; trial court advised maximum ranges | Held against Davner on this point: mere inaccurate prediction insufficient to void plea where court informed defendant of maximums |
| Whether counsel’s erroneous or incomplete advice about judicial release invalidates plea | Counsel told him he would be eligible for judicial release after six months and failed to explain that for sentences ≥5 years judicial release eligibility differs, which materially induced the plea | State offered no evidence disputing defendant’s claim; trial court did not address judicial release on record | Held for Davner: incorrect/incomplete legal advice about judicial release can render plea unknowing; here there was a reasonable probability defendant would not have pled but for the misinformation |
| Whether trial court’s Crim.R. 11 compliance cured other defects | The court complied with constitutional advisements and informed defendant of maximum penalties | Compliance creates a presumption of voluntary plea and undermines self-serving post hoc claims | Court found that despite Crim.R. 11 compliance, totality of circumstances (including counsel failings and misinformation) overcomes presumption and required withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard for guilty-plea ineffective-assistance claims)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R. 11 substantial/strict compliance framework)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (standard for plea-based ineffective-assistance claims)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R. 11 strict vs. substantial compliance distinction)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (manifest injustice standard for postsentence plea withdrawal)
- Nero v. State, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (subjective understanding under Crim.R. 11)
- Griggs v. State, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 2004) (presumption that defendant who does not assert innocence understands plea effect)