State v. Jensen, 2021 Ohio 3505

In 1992 Jensen allegedly committed two counts of gross sexual imposition against two victims under age 13. Victims’ mother knew by 1993.
Jensen was indicted in 2017, changed his plea to a guilty plea under North Carolina v. Alford on November 15, 2017, and was sentenced to a total of five years incarceration (journalized Jan. 16, 2018).
Jensen’s direct appeal and request for reconsideration were previously denied; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2019–2020 Jensen filed multiple postconviction motions (petition to vacate, motions for expert, counsel, discovery, etc.), which the trial court denied on January 24, 2020. He appealed that denial.
On appeal Jensen raised two assignments of error: (1) the plea/sentencing process was defective (coercion, misinformation about potential exposure, and improper sex-offender registration rules), and (2) 25-year preindictment delay prejudiced his defense.
The appellate court affirmed: (a) postconviction claims were barred by res judicata and unsupported by the record, and (b) Jensen failed to show actual prejudice from preindictment delay and waived many claims by pleading guilty under Alford.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jensen)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Validity of Alford plea and voluntariness (including claim of coercion and erroneous sentencing exposure)	Plea was not knowingly made because judge allegedly misstated exposure ("100 year" remark), counsel coerced him to accept a 5-year offer; claims about eligibility for early release and registration law errors	Plea was voluntary; Alford plea functions as a guilty plea that waives pre-plea errors except Crim.R.11 defects; no record support for coercion or Crim.R.11 errors	Affirmed. Plea was valid; postconviction claims were barred by res judicata and unsupported by competent record evidence
Preindictment delay (25-year delay)	Delay prejudiced defense: loss of evidence, unreliable memory of very young victim, venue issues, absence of physical/genetic evidence; statute-of-limitations arguments	State: trial court correctly applied controlling statute-of-limitations law (R.C. 2901.13(J)), and Jensen failed to show actual prejudice; many delay claims waived by his Alford guilty plea	Affirmed. Jensen failed to prove actual prejudice; the trial court correctly denied motion to dismiss and his delay claims are largely waived by plea

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (recognizes guilty plea entered without admitting factual guilt but conceding sufficient evidence for conviction)
State v. Broom, 146 Ohio St.3d 60 (2016) (standard of review and nature of postconviction relief proceedings)
State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (1994) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (res judicata principles in criminal cases)
State v. Jones, 148 Ohio St.3d 167 (2016) (preindictment-delay actual-prejudice framework and analysis)
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (statute of limitations as primary safeguard against stale criminal charges)
State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70 (2006) (guilty plea waives pre-plea defects except Crim.R.11 errors)
State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127 (1991) (plea-waiver principles)