2023 Ohio 373
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Devonta Hill pleaded guilty (represented by retained counsel Michael Cheselka) to amended charges in four Cuyahoga County cases; sentencing was repeatedly continued to allow potential witnesses to be located.
- Hill orally attempted to withdraw his plea before sentencing; his counsel did not join that request, the trial court proceeded to sentencing, and imposed an aggregate 13-year term.
- On direct appeal (Hill I) the appellate court affirmed; it held the trial court properly refused to entertain Hill’s pro se plea‑withdrawal request while he was represented.
- After the convictions, Cheselka was disciplined and later resigned from the practice of law for multiple instances of professional misconduct.
- Nearly three years after Hill I, Hill filed a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his plea, asserting newly discovered evidence of ineffective assistance (including alleged false DNA advice and Cheselka’s disciplinary record). The trial court denied the motion without analysis.
- The appellate majority affirmed, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction under State ex rel. Special Prosecutors to consider a Crim.R. 32.1 motion after an appellate affirmance and that Hill failed to present newly discovered evidence; a dissent argued Cheselka’s discipline was newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does the trial court have jurisdiction to decide a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion after an appellate affirmance? | Special Prosecutors bars trial courts from entertaining Crim.R.32.1 motions after conviction and appellate affirmance. | Davis overrules/limits Special Prosecutors and trial court retains jurisdiction over posttrial motions. | Majority: No jurisdiction under Special Prosecutors for Crim.R.32.1 after affirmance; Davis applies to Crim.R.33 (new trial) not plea withdrawal. |
| 2. Did Hill present newly discovered evidence of ineffective assistance warranting plea withdrawal? | State: Hill offered only a self‑serving affidavit and a lab report; allegations were known earlier and not newly discovered. | Hill: Cheselka’s suspension/resignation and alleged false DNA advice are newly discovered and show ineffective assistance. | Majority: No newly discovered evidence; disciplinary proceedings did not constitute newly discovered evidence related to Hill’s plea. |
| 3. Was Hill’s plea involuntary because of counsel’s alleged false advice about DNA, joinder, and failure to investigate witnesses? | State: Plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a thorough plea colloquy; no proof counsel’s alleged misadvice made the plea involuntary. | Hill: Counsel misadvised him about DNA and case strategy and failed to subpoena alibi witnesses, inducing an involuntary plea. | Majority: Allegations unsupported by record; Hill failed to show a manifest injustice or evidentiary support for involuntariness. |
| 4. Should Davis be applied to allow the trial court to hear Hill’s motion despite Special Prosecutors? | Davis concerns new‑trial motions under Crim.R.33 and does not displace Special Prosecutors for Crim.R.32.1. | Hill: Davis abrogates Special Prosecutors and enables trial courts to hear postconviction Rule‑based motions not decided on direct appeal. | Majority: Davis does not control here; it is limited to Crim.R.33 new‑trial motions and does not authorize Crim.R.32.1 motions after an affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant Crim.R.32.1 plea‑withdrawal after appellate affirmance)
- State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio Sup. Ct.: Special Prosecutors does not bar trial court jurisdiction over posttrial motions permitted by the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure; decision focused on Crim.R.33 new‑trial motions)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Cheselka, 159 Ohio St.3d 3 (Supreme Court disciplinary opinion finding multiple instances of attorney misconduct)
- In re Resignation of Cheselka, 164 Ohio St.3d 1227 (Supreme Court accepted Cheselka’s resignation from the practice of law)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (defendant bears burden to show manifest injustice to withdraw plea postsentencing)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (definition of "manifest injustice" as an extraordinary, fundamental flaw in the plea proceeding)