State v. Henry
2017 Ohio 7427
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 1999 Henry was indicted on drug-trafficking and possession charges; after a jury conviction and appeal, this court reversed and remanded. Cases were severed; Henry was retried on possession (convicted) and later pled no contest in 99‑CR‑584 to two trafficking counts in November 2003 with agreed concurrent/consecutive sentences. The journal entry of conviction for 99‑CR‑584 was not filed until 2011.
- On April 5, 2016 Henry filed a pro se document titled “2953.21 Delayed petition to vacate no contest plea and set aside judgment of conviction” citing R.C. 2953.21 and attaching affidavits alleging his trial attorney had an affair with Henry’s then‑fiancée during representation (affidavits dated March 2016).
- Henry moved for summary judgment and to amend his petition; the trial court denied relief in November 2016, treating the filing as a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw plea rather than an R.C. 2953.21 post‑conviction petition and therefore did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- This court remanded and ordered the trial court either to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law or explain why they were not required. The trial court responded that the filing was a motion to withdraw plea and summarized record facts and called the affidavits self‑serving; Henry appealed that entry.
- The appellate court concluded the trial court erred in construing the April 5, 2016 filing as a motion to withdraw a plea because the filing invoked R.C. 2953.21 and relied on affidavits outside the record alleging ineffective assistance based on a conflict of interest; the cause was reversed and remanded for proper post‑conviction consideration and appropriate findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Henry’s April 5, 2016 filing a post‑conviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 or a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw plea? | Trial court: filing was a motion to withdraw plea; thus findings of fact and conclusions of law not required. | Henry: filing expressly invoked R.C. 2953.21, relied on extra‑record affidavits, and sought delayed post‑conviction relief. | Filing should be treated as a petition for post‑conviction relief under R.C. 2953.21. |
| Did the trial court provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to dismiss the petition without a hearing? | Trial court: summarized plea record and called affidavits self‑serving, implying dismissal was warranted. | Henry: trial court failed to apply Calhoun factors or supply adequate findings explaining why affidavits lacked credibility. | Trial court’s explanations were insufficient under Calhoun; remand required for proper analysis and findings. |
| Can the trial court discount self‑serving affidavits without an evidentiary hearing? | Trial court: may deem affidavits self‑serving and lacking credibility. | Henry: needed specific findings applying Calhoun factors to justify disbelief. | Court may discount affidavits but must state reasons in findings; here it did not adequately do so. |
| Is the petition barred by res judicata or procedural default? | Trial court: other grounds should have been raised earlier and may be barred by res judicata. | Henry: raised new ineffective‑assistance claim based on facts outside the record (affair) that could support delayed petition under R.C. 2953.23. | Court did not adequately address res judicata/threshold R.C. 2953.23 analysis; remand required for proper disposition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. State, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (trial court must state reasons when discounting affidavits in postconviction proceedings)
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (postsentence motion to withdraw plea is distinct from postconviction relief)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (trial court discretion to grant or dismiss petition with or without hearing)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Owen, 142 Ohio St.3d 323 (conflict/ethical issues arising from attorney conduct)