State v. Kendrick
2017 Ohio 1306
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Shawn D. Kendrick was indicted on multiple rape, kidnapping, abduction, and aggravated robbery counts based on post‑1990s DNA identification; he ultimately pled guilty in 2005 to seven rape counts in exchange for dismissal of other charges.
- Following plea and sentencing (consecutive prison terms), Kendrick pursued multiple post‑conviction and appellate challenges over several years; this Court and the Ohio Supreme Court previously remanded for resentencing under State v. Foster.
- Kendrick filed successive motions to withdraw his guilty pleas (Crim.R. 32.1) raising suppression and voluntariness claims; prior motions were denied and appeals treated his claims as either previously litigated or cognizable on direct appeal/post‑conviction relief.
- In a November 17, 2015 pro se motion, Kendrick argued: the Dayton Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a DNA search warrant executed outside city limits; lack of probable cause for the warrant; improper execution/consent issues; he was sentenced on a dismissed indictment; the plea was involuntary because the court failed to advise him of sexual‑offender consequences; and counsel was ineffective for failing to notify him when trial transcripts were filed.
- The trial court denied the 2015 motion, finding the claims were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in post‑conviction proceedings (Crim.R. 32.1 manifest‑injustice standard) and applying res judicata to previously rejected claims. Kendrick appealed that denial.
- The appellate court affirmed: it treated suppression/indictment challenges as waived by the guilty plea (except ineffective‑assistance claims that would affect voluntariness), found adequate Crim.R. 11 advisals regarding sex‑offender classification, and held the transcript‑notice claim was not properly raised below and unrelated to plea withdrawal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction/probable cause for Dayton Municipal Court warrant and execution/consent to DNA collection | State: suppression and warrant claims lack merit and were or could have been raised earlier; barred by res judicata | Kendrick: Dayton court lacked authority to issue warrant for DNA outside city; lack of probable cause; officer lacked authority; he did not consent | Waived by guilty plea; claims either previously litigated or cognizable on direct appeal/post‑conviction; no manifest injustice; overruled |
| Sentencing on dismissed indictment | State: record shows only a count was dismissed; plea and colloquy show Kendrick pled to a C‑count; claim is incorrect and waived | Kendrick: he was sentenced on an indictment that had been dismissed | Waived by plea; record demonstrates he pled to Count 1 of the C indictment and was not sentenced on a dismissed indictment; overruled |
| Crim.R. 11 advisement — failure to inform of sexual‑offender consequences (involuntary plea) | State: court properly advised Kendrick of aggravated sexually‑oriented offender designation and reporting/limitations; claim could have been raised earlier | Kendrick: plea was involuntary because court failed to inform him he would be labeled a sexual predator | Record shows the court advised him of classification, lifetime reporting, residency restrictions, and consequences; claim waived or without merit; overruled |
| Ineffective assistance re: counsel/appellate counsel failure to inform when transcripts were filed | State: issue not raised below and not related to plea withdrawal; procedurally defaulted | Kendrick: counsel failed to inform him when trial transcripts were filed with the appellate clerk | Not raised in trial court and therefore not properly before appellate court; unrelated to Crim.R. 32.1 manifest injustice standard; overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2006) (courts have full discretion to impose sentences within statutory ranges after the judicial‑factfinding changes to sentencing law)
- In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 411 (Ohio 2006) (companion Ohio Supreme Court decision addressing sentencing statutes)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for appointed counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (abuse‑of‑discretion review focuses on reasonableness of the trial court's decision)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (Crim.R. 32.1 "manifest injustice" standard requires extraordinary circumstances)