State v. King
41 N.E.3d 847
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2004, 14-year-old Darryl King (an Ohio resident) committed sexual conduct in Michigan while on a two-day vacation; he accepted a plea to third-degree criminal sexual conduct via a Michigan family-court settlement that referenced SORA registration.
- The Michigan court lacked statutory authority to require registration because Michigan law then applied only to persons domiciled, resident, student, or working in Michigan for longer periods; King was not subject to Michigan registration.
- Michigan prosecutors sent Hamilton County authorities a copy of the settlement and a note requesting King be registered in Ohio; the Michigan sentencing entry stated King “shall be registered as a sexual offender in the state of Ohio.”
- King was later prosecuted in Ohio for failure to provide periodic address verification (two separate cases), pleaded guilty in each, and received community control and jail sentences; he moved post-sentence to withdraw those guilty pleas.
- King argued his pleas were not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent because counsel allegedly misadvised him about an Ohio duty to register; the trial court denied his motions to withdraw pleas.
- The court of appeals reversed, holding King had no duty to register in Michigan and therefore no duty to register in Ohio, creating a manifest injustice that warranted permitting withdrawal of his guilty pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King can withdraw post-sentence guilty pleas for failing to verify address because the pleas were not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent due to incorrect advice about sex-offender registration duty | King: He had no duty to register in Michigan, so no Ohio registration duty; counsel’s incorrect advice rendered his pleas involuntary and a manifest injustice. | State: King pleaded guilty and was convicted of failing to verify; registration duty existed under Ohio law as applied. | Court: Reversed trial court; King had no duty to register in Michigan and thus no Ohio duty; demonstrated manifest injustice; allow plea withdrawal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lloyd, 132 Ohio St.3d 135, 970 N.E.2d 870 (Ohio 2012) (out-of-state offender must have had a duty to register in the convicting jurisdiction for Ohio registration requirement to apply)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (Ohio 1977) (Crim.R. 32.1 permits post-sentence plea withdrawal to correct manifest injustice)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203, 699 N.E.2d 83 (Ohio 1998) (defines "manifest injustice" as a clear or openly unjust act)
- State v. Tekulve, 188 Ohio App.3d 792, 936 N.E.2d 1030 (1st Dist. 2010) (plea-withdrawal standard and discussion of manifest injustice)