2016 Ohio 229
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Police executed a search warrant at Keith Griffin’s Springfield home and found 66.20 grams of heroin packaged for sale, 23.44 grams of cocaine, drug-distribution paraphernalia, and two handguns; Griffin had a prior felony drug conviction and was on post-release control.
- Griffin was charged by bill of information with first-degree felony trafficking in heroin and third-degree felony having weapons while under disability, with a forfeiture specification.
- On January 15, 2014, Griffin waived indictment, pled no contest to both counts, and agreed to the forfeiture; the State agreed to dismiss a firearm specification and a cocaine charge.
- At sentencing (Feb. 4, 2014) the court imposed concurrent terms of nine years for trafficking and two years for weapons-under-disability, ordered the nine-year term consecutive to a post-release-control revocation term, and ordered forfeiture and license suspension.
- Griffin did not appeal his conviction but, on Sept. 17, 2014, filed a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his plea claiming ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing (failure to allocute/argue mitigation); the trial court denied the motion.
- The court of appeals affirmed, finding no manifest injustice and that counsel had advocated (memorandum and oral argument) at sentencing; the court performed an Anders/Penson review and found no arguable issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a post-sentence plea withdrawal is warranted for ineffective assistance of counsel | State: Defendant must show counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudice such that plea withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice | Griffin: Counsel failed to allocute and argue mitigation at sentencing, so assistance was deficient and plea withdrawal is warranted | Denied. Court held Griffin failed to show deficient performance or prejudice; counsel filed a memorandum and advocated at sentencing. |
| Whether defendant’s dissatisfaction with sentence alone supports Crim.R. 32.1 withdrawal | State: Mere dissatisfaction or disagreement with sentence/advocacy does not constitute manifest injustice | Griffin: Sentence severity and counsel’s alleged failure to mitigate render plea involuntary/unfair | Denied. Court reaffirmed that dissatisfaction with sentence does not, by itself, establish manifest injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for appointed counsel to file brief asserting no nonfrivolous issues and notifying defendant of right to file pro se brief)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate courts must independently review record when counsel files an Anders brief)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and resulting prejudice)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (post-sentence withdrawal of plea allowed only in extraordinary cases involving manifest injustice)