State v. Jackson
2017 Ohio 1296
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Brandon Jackson pleaded guilty in two Mahoning County cases (13 CR 193 and 13 CR 271A) pursuant to plea agreements; consolidated sentencing produced an aggregate 18-year prison term.
- He filed a direct appeal challenging counsel’s effectiveness and sentencing information; this court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- Over a year after sentencing, Jackson filed pro se post-sentence motions to withdraw his guilty pleas claiming counsel coerced him and misrepresented that sentences would run concurrently (total 10 years). The trial court denied those motions; Jackson did not appeal the first denial but later moved again and was denied.
- Jackson pursued a delayed appeal; appointed counsel and a pro se brief were filed. The principal claim on appeal was that the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on the post-sentence motions.
- The trial court’s plea colloquies were thorough: Jackson acknowledged understanding charges, rights waived by pleading guilty, potential sentences, and that sentencing was for the court to decide. Jackson also stated satisfaction with counsel during those hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motions to withdraw guilty pleas | State: No hearing required because allegations, even if true, do not show manifest injustice; plea colloquies were thorough and defendant waited too long to move | Jackson: Counsel coerced/misled him into pleading by promising concurrent sentences (10 years) and advising cooperation over his desire to go to trial, warranting a hearing | Held: No abuse of discretion; allegations insufficient to show manifest injustice and delay undercuts credibility; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether prior pro se motions alleging coercion could be considered on the later motion | State: Prior denied motion was not appealed and cannot be relitigated here | Jackson: (implicitly) earlier allegations relevant to challenge | Held: Earlier, unappealed denial bars consideration of those claims now |
| Whether a mere regret about pleading guilty (wishing to have gone to trial) justifies post-sentence withdrawal | State: Mere change of heart is insufficient; petitioner could have moved pre-sentence | Jackson: Wanted trial but followed counsel’s advice; claims ineffective assistance | Held: Regret does not meet manifest injustice standard; timing supports denial |
| Whether plea colloquies and record show plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent | State: Detailed Crim.R. 11 colloquies and defendant’s affirmative answers demonstrate voluntariness | Jackson: Contends counsel’s advice undermined voluntariness | Held: Colloquies demonstrate a knowing, voluntary plea; counsel’s advice alone insufficient to overturn plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Blatnik v. State, 17 Ohio App.3d 201 (6th Dist. 1984) (trial court may deny a hearing when alleged facts would not require withdrawal of plea)
- Xie v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (abuse of discretion standard for post-sentence plea-withdrawal motions)
- Adams v. State, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (burden on movant to show manifest injustice; timeliness and delay affect credibility)
- Kadwell v. United States, 315 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1963) (policy basis for strict post-sentence withdrawal standard to prevent plea-shopping)