State v. Howard
2019 Ohio 5357
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 1998 Howard and accomplices robbed an apartment; Howard fired a 9mm, killing Walker Lee Smith and wounding another; Howard was shot during return fire.
- Howard was indicted on aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery counts, and felonious-assault counts, each with firearm specifications.
- On June 7, 1999 Howard pled guilty to aggravated murder (with a firearm specification) and several robbery and felonious-assault counts under a plea agreement; aggregate sentence was 26 years to life (life for murder with parole eligibility and concurrent/consecutive terms for others).
- Howard did not appeal his convictions; in December 2018 he moved to withdraw his guilty pleas alleging insufficient facts, suggestive ID, Brady/discovery failures, ineffective assistance, involuntariness (wanted to plead no contest), and erroneous post-release-control advisement.
- The trial court denied the Crim.R. 32.1 post-sentence motion without a hearing, concluding claims were waived or barred by res judicata, but vacated an erroneous post-release-control notification for the aggravated-murder count.
- On delayed appeal the appellate court affirmed denial of the plea-withdrawal motion: it emphasized undue delay, Crim.R.11 compliance, waiver of trial issues by plea, insufficiency of evidence claims being waived, no showing of ineffective assistance, and that the post-release-control error did not create manifest injustice requiring plea withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / undue delay in seeking plea withdrawal | State: 19½ year delay undermines credibility, prejudices State, and militates against relief | Howard: raised substantive defects in plea and sentencing despite long delay | Court: Delay weighed heavily against finding a "manifest injustice"; no relief |
| Crim.R.11 voluntariness of plea | State: Colloquy complied with Crim.R.11 (strict on constitutional rights; substantial on nonconstitutional) and Howard knowingly pled | Howard: Plea involuntary because he wanted to plead no contest and asserted defects in colloquy | Court: Trial court strictly complied with Crim.R.11(C)(2)(c) and substantially complied with other provisions; plea was voluntary |
| Sufficiency / factual basis for aggravated murder and other offenses | State: Guilty plea admits the indictment; prosecutor gave factual statement and defendant proceeded despite reservations | Howard: Insufficient facts for intent/prior calculation and design; eyewitness ID suggestive; challenges to ballistic and witness credibility | Court: Plea admits indictment facts; disagreements over underlying facts do not show manifest injustice; insufficiency claim waived by plea |
| Brady / discovery failures and ineffective assistance of counsel | State: Discovery disputes were known pre-plea; defense declined continuance and elected plea; no proof counsel's performance was deficient or that missing material would have changed plea decision | Howard: Incomplete discovery (personnel files, ballistics, etc.) impeded counsel and caused ineffective assistance | Court: Alleged discovery failures and speculative prejudice do not show deficient performance or reasonable probability that Howard would have refused plea; no manifest injustice |
| Erroneous post-release-control advisement and relief procedure | State: Post-release-control error may be corrected; vacating that part does not require plea withdrawal | Howard: Improper PRC advisement for aggravated murder is void and mandates plea withdrawal or hearing | Court: Post-release-control on unclassified felony (aggravated murder) was erroneous but remedied by vacating the obligation; this error alone did not warrant plea withdrawal and no resentencing hearing required to correct via nunc pro tunc |
| Presence at suppression hearings (right to be present) | State: Defendant was present for at least one hearing and waived presence for another; counsel can waive client's presence | Howard: Denied right to be present at a critical suppression hearing(s) | Court: Record indicates presence for June 18 hearing and waiver for September 4; no manifest injustice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (trial courts must strictly comply with Crim.R.11(C)(2)(c) and substantially comply with other Crim.R.11 requirements)
- State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 (distinguishing strict vs. substantial compliance and prejudice analysis)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (complete failure to comply with Crim.R.11 requires vacatur)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (substantial compliance standard and subjective understanding)
- State v. Fisher, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (post-release-control error renders that part of sentence void)
- State ex rel. Roberts v. Marsh, 156 Ohio St.3d 440 (trial court may correct improper post-release-control by nunc pro tunc entry; no resentencing required in that context)
- McCain v. Huffman, 151 Ohio St.3d 611 (unclassified felonies like aggravated murder are not subject to post-release control)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (trial court must notify defendants about post-release control where applicable)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Crim.R.11 defects can support reversal on direct appeal)