State v. Hopkins
2013 Ohio 3674
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Hopkins pled guilty in Feb. 2004 to rape (7-year-old daughter) and gross sexual imposition, receiving a total 15-year sentence (10 years for rape consecutive to 5 for GSI) under a plea agreement.
- He did not appeal his convictions or sentence at that time. In Oct. 2012, he moved to withdraw his pleas and/or obtain relief from judgment, claiming the offenses should have merged under allied offenses principles.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding res judicata barred the claim and that the offenses were not allied offenses of similar import.
- Hopkins appealed pro se, arguing the trial court erred in sentencing him for two offenses that should have been merged and seeking withdrawal of pleas.
- The court applied Crim.R. 32.1, requiring a showing of manifest injustice for post-sentence withdrawal, and emphasized the high standard and the eight-year delay affecting credibility.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that res judicata barred the claim and, even if not barred, the pre-Johnson analysis showed the offenses were not allied offenses; no manifest injustice was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-sentence withdrawal is barred by res judicata | Hopkins: res judicata should not bar withdrawal to address merger. | Hopkins: not eligible for relief due to res judicata and allied-offense claim. | Barred by res judicata. |
| Whether rape and gross sexual imposition are allied offenses of similar import | Hopkins: the offenses should have merged under allied-offenses analysis. | Hopkins: they are allied offenses and should have merged, affecting sentence. | Not allied offenses under pre-Johnson analysis. |
| Whether the trial court abused Crim.R. 32.1 in denying withdrawal for manifest injustice | Hopkins: manifest injustice occurred due to improper sentencing for allied offenses. | Hopkins: no manifest injustice; eight-year delay undermines credibility; no error in denial. | No manifest injustice; denial upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carter, 2011-Ohio-414 (12th Dist. Clinton Nos. CA2010-07-012, CA2010-08-016) (post-sentence withdrawal requires manifest injustice; abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Smith, None provided (1977) (Crim.R. 32.1 standard; manifest injustice high threshold)
- State v. Williams, 2009-Ohio-6240 (12th Dist. Warren No. CA2009-03-032) (manifest injustice defined; due process considerations)
- State v. Layne, 2012-Ohio-1627 (4th Dist. Highland No. 11CA17) (manifest injustice; extremely high standard; extraordinary cases)
- State v. Dodson, 2011-Ohio-6347 (12th Dist. Butler No. CA2011-02-034) (res judicata; defense raised or could have been raised)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (syllabus on res judicata principles)
- State v. Woods, 2011-Ohio-5825 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96487) (allied offenses; timing of argument on appeal)
- State v. Nicholas, 66 Ohio St.3d 431 (1993) (predecessor allied-offense framework)