2016 Ohio 870
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2007 Dallas Hillman pleaded no contest to possession of crack cocaine and illegal conveyance of drugs into a detention facility and was sentenced to eight years; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- The Ohio Supreme Court declined further review of the direct appeal.
- Hillman later filed multiple postconviction motions (including motions to withdraw his plea and a motion for judicial release); one trial-court order granting withdrawal was reversed on appeal as raising issues that could have been raised earlier.
- In 2014 Hillman filed another pro se motion to withdraw his plea claiming he was not advised his sentence was mandatory; the trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata and because it lacked jurisdiction after the prior affirmance.
- Hillman appealed the denial, raising three assignments of error alleging defects in the plea colloquy and sentencing procedure (failure to advise of mandatory sentence, plea not knowing/voluntary, and sentencing without presence/hearing).
- The Ninth District affirmed, holding res judicata and the precedent that trial courts lack authority to reconsider pleas after an appellate affirmance precluded Hillman’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the no-contest plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 and constitutional due process | Hillman: plea was not knowing/voluntary because he was not told his sentence was mandatory | State: claim could have been raised on direct appeal and is barred by res judicata | Court: barred by res judicata; assignment overruled |
| 2. Whether trial court failed to advise Hillman his sentence was mandatory and thus ineligible for community control under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) | Hillman: trial court failed to notify him of mandatory nature of sentence, affecting plea validity | State: same res judicata and lack of jurisdiction arguments | Court: claim could have been raised on direct appeal and is barred; trial court lacked authority to grant relief |
| 3. Whether the court erred by increasing sentence from non-mandatory to mandatory without Hillman present or a hearing (Crim.R. 43(A)) | Hillman: sentencing change occurred without his presence or a proper hearing, violating rights | State: appellate affirmance forecloses relitigation; trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter plea/sentence post-appeal | Court: claim barred and overruled; denial of motion affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (establishes res judicata rule for criminal convictions)
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (trial court lacks authority to entertain motion to withdraw plea after appellate affirmance)