2020 Ohio 662
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Reginald Heise was indicted on three counts: two counts of aggravated burglary (R.C. 2911.11(A)(2)) with firearm and other specifications, and one count of aggravated menacing; several specifications were attached and some later nolled.
- Heise entered a negotiated guilty plea to an amended aggravated burglary charge with a three‑year firearm specification and prior‑conviction notice; court accepted plea after Crim.R. 11 colloquy.
- Sentenced in July 2016 to three years on the offense plus three years on the firearm specification, to be served consecutively (six years total).
- More than two years later Heise filed a pro se postsentence motion to withdraw his plea asserting ineffective assistance and that the indictment/conviction were legally defective because aggravated burglary, he argued, required intent to commit a felony (not a misdemeanor aggravated menacing).
- Trial court denied the postsentence motion without an evidentiary hearing; the appellate court consolidated Heise’s appeals and affirmed the conviction and denial of the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of indictment under R.C. 2911.11(A) | State: indictment properly charged aggravated burglary under current statute. | Heise: R.C. 2911.11(A) requires intent to commit a felony, so charging intent to commit aggravated menacing (a misdemeanor) was not a criminal offense under that statute. | Court: statute covers intent to commit “any criminal offense”; Gardner controls; indictment valid. |
| Whether plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary | State: plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11; defendant understood rights and penalties. | Heise: plea was uninformed/invalid because it relied on an erroneous understanding of the applicable statute. | Court: plea was valid; plea waiver and Crim.R. 11 compliance showed it was knowing and voluntary. |
| Post‑sentence motion to withdraw plea / need for hearing | State: defendant must show manifest injustice; record and affidavit insufficient. | Heise: counsel’s alleged misadvice and indictment defects warrant withdrawal and an evidentiary hearing. | Court: no manifest injustice alleged; self‑serving affidavit insufficient; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying without hearing. |
| Ineffective assistance / failure to object / multiplicity | State: counsel’s performance was not deficient because indictment was legally sufficient and no prejudice shown. | Heise: counsel misadvised about applicable law, failed to object to indictment and multiplicity, and mischaracterized lesser‑included issues. | Court: counsel not shown deficient because underlying legal premise was incorrect; prejudice not established; claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gardner, 889 N.E.2d 995 (2008) (R.C. 2911.11(A) amended to require intent to commit “any criminal offense,” not only a felony).
- State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (2008) (Crim.R. 11 requires plea to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; courts must ensure defendant informed of consequences).
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice).
- State v. Biros, 678 N.E.2d 891 (1997) (failure to timely object to indictment waives nonjurisdictional defects).
- State v. Xie, 584 N.E.2d 715 (Ohio 1992) (standard for evaluating counsel performance in relation to guilty pleas).
- State v. Fontes, 721 N.E.2d 1037 (2000) (purpose to commit the separate criminal offense may be formed during the trespass).