State v. Green
2017 Ohio 2800
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Danny M. Green was indicted on multiple sexual-offense counts and pled guilty in April 2013 to two amended rape counts; the trial court accepted the plea and sentenced him to an aggregate nine-year prison term.
- During the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy the trial court incorrectly told Green he could be eligible for community control and for earned-credit reductions, despite the offenses carrying a mandatory prison term.
- Green did not file a direct appeal. In 2014 he filed a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea raising several challenges (including ineffective assistance and indictment/amendment issues); the trial court denied the motion and this court affirmed.
- In 2016 Green filed a second Crim.R. 32.1 motion arguing the plea was void because the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) by misinforming him about community control and earned credit.
- The trial court denied the successive motion as barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine; on appeal this court affirmed on different grounds, holding res judicata bars Green’s claim because the Crim.R. 11 error was apparent on the record and could have been raised earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of plea given Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) misstatements | The state contended the plea was valid and prior rulings precluded relitigation | Green argued the plea is void because the court misinformed him about community control and earned credit | The plea was voidable, not void; the Crim.R. 11 error did not strip subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Applicability of res judicata to successive Crim.R. 32.1 motion | State argued res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised earlier | Green argued res judicata/law-of-the-case do not apply because the plea is void | Res judicata bars the successive motion because the Crim.R. 11 error was apparent in the record and could have been raised on direct appeal or in the first motion |
| Whether a Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) violation can render a plea void | State maintained such violations make a plea voidable, not void | Green asserted the misadvice made the plea void ab initio | Court held Crim.R. 11 defects produce voidable pleas unless the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction or committed a statutory-sentence omission that makes a sentence void |
| Proper standard for affirming trial-court judgment | State relied on res judicata and prior appellate affirmance | Green relied on law-of-the-case and argued trial court erred in refusing to address voidness | Court affirmed denial of successive motion (on res judicata grounds), declining to reach law-of-the-case issue |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (Ohio 2016) (certain mandatory sentencing omissions can render a sentence void).
- Dunbar v. State, 136 Ohio St.3d 181 (Ohio 2013) (a guilty plea is voidable, not void, when court has subject-matter jurisdiction but errs in accepting the plea).
- State v. Silvers, 181 Ohio App.3d 26 (Ohio App. 2009) (rape conviction subject to mandatory prison term; defendant ineligible for community control and earned-credit reductions).
- Joyce v. General Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1990) (appellate court reviews correctness of judgment, not the trial court’s reasoning).