State v. Kendrick
2012 Ohio 5795
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Kendrick pleaded guilty to seven counts of rape on January 26, 2005; sentences included five consecutive indeterminate terms 10–25 years and one concurrent 10–25 year for pre-S.B.2 rapes, plus a post-S.B.2 count sentence.
- Appellate review affirmed Kendrick I (2006-Ohio-311) and Kendrick II (2007-Ohio-6136) in related pre-S.B.2/post-S.B.2 sentencing challenges.
- Supreme Court remanded for re-sentencing under Foster, leading to a 2006 remand and a new termination entry ordering the post-S.B.2 sentence to be served consecutively.
- Kendrick petitioned for post-remand relief; the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry reflecting his guilty plea on September 20, 2011; later, a Crim.R. 32 motion to withdraw his plea was filed August/September 2011.
- On February 22, 2012 the trial court denied Kendrick’s motion to withdraw his plea without a hearing; Kendrick timely appealed this decision.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief; Kendrick filed a merit brief arguing coercion and ineffective assistance; the court conducted an independent review and affirmed, deeming the appeal wholly frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied withdrawal of the guilty plea | Kendrick contends coercion/ineffective assistance rendered plea involuntary. | Kendrick asserts trial counsel induced the plea via improper tactics; plea should be withdrawn. | No error; motion to withdraw properly denied. |
| Whether claims were barred by res judicata or could have been raised earlier | Kendrick argues unresolved issues could be raised now. | Claims were or could have been raised on direct appeal or via post-conviction relief; barred by res judicata. | Claims barred or previously resolved; no manifest injustice from withdrawal of plea. |
| Whether any issues lack merit after Anders review | Kendrick asserts the Anders brief misses potentially meritorious issues. | No non-frivolous issues exist beyond those already addressed. | Appeal deemed wholly frivolous; no meritorious issues identified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires independent review when counsel files an Anders brief)
- State v. Kendrick, 2006-Ohio-311 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 20965 (2006)) (prior affirmations; res judicata considerations for post-conviction relief)
- State v. Kendrick, 2007-Ohio-6136 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21790 (2007)) (further appellate discussion of Kendrick's sentencing/appeal issues)
- In re Ohio Sentencing Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 411 (2006-Ohio-2394) (remand for re-sentencing under Foster framework)
- Foster v. Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (remediation framework for post-S.B.2 sentencing on remand)