2019 Ohio 1982
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Jeimil Hunt pleaded guilty in 1994 to attempted aggravated burglary, aggravated murder, and aggravated robbery; sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 48 years; he did not file a timely direct appeal.
- In 2012 Hunt moved to withdraw his plea; the motion was denied and he again did not timely appeal. In 2017 he filed for leave to file a delayed appeal, which was granted more than 23 years after conviction.
- The transcript of Hunt’s 1994 plea hearing was no longer available because court records need not be kept beyond the period in R.C. 2301.20; the trial court could not settle the record under App.R. 9(C) due to lack of independent recollection.
- Hunt raised nine assignments of error challenging the voluntariness and knowing nature of his pleas and compliance with the special procedures for aggravated murder pleas (State v. Green).
- The court treated Hunt as at fault for nonproduction of the transcript (following State v. Frazier) and applied the presumption of regularity to the plea proceedings; Hunt’s self-serving recollections were insufficient to overcome the presumption.
- Court affirmed Hunt’s convictions, concluding the record (and final entry) showed no legal error and presuming compliance with Crim.R. 11 and Green.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hunt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State v. Green applies retroactively to Hunt’s 1994 guilty plea | Green governs and should be applied to ensure three-judge-panel procedures in aggravated murder pleas | Burrage and panel precedent argued to limit Green’s retroactive application | Court follows Kelley and applies Green to Hunt despite plea predating Green |
| Whether appellate court may presume regularity where plea transcript is unavailable | Presumption of regularity applies because defendant’s delay caused nonproduction under R.C. 2301.20 and Frazier/Jones | Hunt contends missing transcript prevents presumption and requires relief/new hearing | Court holds Hunt at fault for nonproduction; presumption of regularity applies |
| Whether trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 / Green (affecting voluntariness) | Trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 and Green; nothing in available record rebuts presumption | Hunt claims plea not knowing/voluntary and panel did not follow Green procedures | Court presumes compliance with Crim.R. 11 and Green; finds no merit to voluntariness claims |
| Whether defendant’s self-serving App.R. 9(C) statements can overcome presumption | State argues such statements are insufficient against presumption when defendant caused record loss | Hunt offered his recollections and an App.R. 9(C) statement asserting errors | Court rejects self-serving recollections; they do not overcome presumption of regularity |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Green, 81 Ohio St.3d 100 (1998) (when a plea to aggravated murder is entered, a three-judge panel must examine witnesses and hear evidence to determine guilt under R.C. 2945.06)
- State v. Post, 32 Ohio St.3d 380 (1987) (three-judge panel must hear testimony to determine guilt for aggravated murder under R.C. 2945.06)
- State v. Jones, 71 Ohio St.3d 293 (1994) (if defendant causes nonproduction of appellate record, appellate court may presume regularity; if defendant blameless, new trial may be required)
- McFadden v. Cleveland State Univ., 120 Ohio St.3d 54 (2008) (procedural guidance on resolving conflicts and en banc consideration under appellate rules)
- State v. Silsby, 119 Ohio St.3d 370 (2008) (delayed appeals, once granted, proceed as timely appeals and identical standards of review apply)