State v. Johnson
2017 Ohio 9227
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In July 2010 Jacque L. Johnson was indicted for aggravated robbery (with a 3‑year firearm specification), having weapons while under disability, and aggravated menacing.
- Johnson, then on parole for a 1983 aggravated robbery conviction, entered a plea agreement: plead guilty to aggravated robbery and the firearm specification; State dismissed other counts; agreed sentence of six years was imposed.
- In August 2016 Johnson filed a postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the trial court failed to properly advise him that the plea could lead the Parole Board to impose additional time on his preexisting parole (thereby extending his incarceration).
- Johnson also requested an evidentiary hearing on the motion and sought a complete transcript at the State’s expense for appeal purposes.
- The trial court denied the motion to withdraw, denied a hearing, and denied the transcript request because no appeal was pending. Johnson appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson may withdraw his postsentence guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1 (manifest injustice) | Trial court: Johnson failed to show extraordinary circumstances or manifest injustice; burden on defendant to prove it | Johnson: plea was not knowingly/intelligently made because court inadequately warned that plea could lead to additional parole time from prior conviction | Denied — plea advisement was sufficient and Johnson showed no prejudice; motion to withdraw overruled |
| Whether Crim.R. 11(C) warnings were deficient regarding collateral effect on parole | State: court’s colloquy adequately informed defendant parole could impose additional time; nonconstitutional advisements need only substantial compliance | Johnson: trial court failed to properly advise him that parole violation could add three years, so plea was involuntary | Denied — colloquy informed defendant parole board could add time; court substantially complied; no prejudice shown |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw was required | State: judge could decide based on the plea transcript; facts alleged did not, accepted as true, require withdrawal | Johnson: requested a hearing to establish misadvice and prejudice | Denied — transcript review sufficed; judge who sentenced could decide without additional hearing |
| Whether a complete transcript must be prepared at State expense for appeal | State: no appeal was pending, so transcript not necessary at State expense | Johnson: requested transcript for effective pursuit of appeal | Denied — no notice of appeal had been filed, so transcript not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Turner, 869 N.E.2d 708 (Ohio Ct. App.) (manifest-injustice standard for postsentence plea withdrawal)
- State v. Mays, 884 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App.) (policy against allowing plea withdrawals to test sentence severity)
- State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio 1985) (context on withdrawal after plea/sentence)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (prejudice requirement when Crim.R.11 substantial compliance involves nonconstitutional rights)
- State v. Hamed, 63 Ohio App.3d 5 (Ohio Ct. App.) (when a hearing on a postsentence withdrawal motion is required)