2022 Ohio 1295
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Nyshawn Little, a 1994 murder convict released on parole in 2012, pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct on November 23, 2015 and was sentenced to 30 days (22 days credited). The plea triggered parole revocation and additional prison time.
- Little filed multiple post-sentence motions to withdraw his guilty plea, previously arguing ignorance of the parole consequence and ineffective assistance; those earlier efforts were denied or dismissed.
- In December 2020 Little filed a Crim.R. 32.1 motion relying on a September 9, 2020 affidavit from the complaining witness, Brandy Koffel, who recanted her 2015 statement and said the incident did not occur as originally described.
- The trial court held a March 8, 2021 proceeding to decide whether to hold an evidentiary hearing, reviewed the 2015 contemporaneous police statement and a photograph of injury, and denied the 2020 motion in an April 26, 2021 decision, finding the recantation not credible.
- Little appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion and by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing to test the recantation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on an asserted claim of actual innocence | The State: the plea was counseled, voluntary, and the recantation lacks credibility; no manifest injustice | Little: the recanting affidavit of the complaining witness establishes actual innocence and thus manifest injustice | Court: no abuse of discretion; recantation lacked credibility in light of contemporaneous police statement and photographic evidence, and a counseled guilty plea weighs heavily against withdrawal |
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the Crim.R. 32.1 motion | The State: hearing unnecessary because the affidavit is not credible and the record supports denial | Little: hearing required to test recantation and correct manifest injustice | Court: no; the judge applied Calhoun-style credibility analysis, explained reasons for discounting the affidavit, and properly exercised discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stumpf, 32 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1987) (plea withdrawal post-sentence permitted only to correct manifest injustice)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (defendant bears burden to show manifest injustice)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (factors trial court should consider when assessing credibility of affidavits)
- United States v. Chambers, 944 F.2d 1253 (6th Cir. 1991) (recanting affidavits and witnesses are viewed with great suspicion)
- State v. Moore, 99 Ohio App.3d 748 (1st Dist. 1994) (source of Calhoun's credibility-factor framework)