State v. Johnson
2017 Ohio 4116
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Donald Lee Johnson pleaded no contest (Sept. 19, 2011) to aggravated possession of drugs (first-degree felony) after being found with 1,919 morphine tablets.\
- At the plea hearing the trial judge misstated that there was only a presumption of prison; the plea form (signed by Johnson) explicitly stated the sentence was mandatory.\
- Johnson was sentenced (Oct. 31, 2011) to an aggregate 13-year term, including an eight-year mandatory term for the drug count; the sentencing entry correctly labeled the term as mandatory.\
- This court affirmed Johnson’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal in 2014; he did not raise the claim that the trial judge failed to inform him the sentence was mandatory.\
- Johnson filed a pro se post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion (Mar. 7, 2016) to withdraw his no contest plea, arguing the plea was not knowing and voluntary because the judge failed to advise him the sentence was mandatory (affecting eligibility for early judicial release).\
- The trial court denied the motion as barred by res judicata; the court also observed the sentencing entry and plea form put Johnson on notice. This appeal followed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson can withdraw his post-sentence no contest plea based on the trial court's failure at the plea hearing to advise that the sentence was mandatory | The State: res judicata bars the claim because it could have been raised on direct appeal | Johnson: plea was not knowing, intelligent, voluntary because judge failed to advise sentence was mandatory, making him ineligible for early release | Court: Claim barred by res judicata; failure to advise makes sentence voidable (not void) and could have been raised on direct appeal, so no manifest injustice found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)\
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (a void sentence may be challenged at any time; distinguishes void from voidable)\
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (manifest injustice standard for post-sentence plea withdrawal)\
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (trial court lacks authority to vacate a judgment already affirmed by an appellate court)