State v. Long
2017 Ohio 2848
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2017Background
- Guy A. Long was indicted in 2011 on multiple felony counts (drug possession, weapon under disability, receiving stolen property, safecracking, and later tampering with evidence) following a no‑knock search of his residence.
- Long moved to suppress the warrant; the trial court denied the motion.
- Long pled no contest in September 2011 to most counts and was sentenced to an aggregate 7‑year prison term.
- Long pursued appeals (including multiple appellate decisions referenced as Long I and Long V). In February 2017 he filed a successive motion to withdraw his no‑contest plea; the trial court denied it.
- Long appealed the denial, raising three assignments of error challenging (1) the trial court’s jurisdiction to rule on the motion, (2) the statutory definition/weight of cocaine when mixed with fillers, and (3) sufficiency of evidence identifying the substance as cocaine.
- The appellate court treated the appeal as pro se, declined to consider factual material outside the record, and concluded the claims were barred by res judicata; it affirmed the trial court’s denial of the successive motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Long) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to rule on a successive Crim.R. 32.1 motion after conviction affirmed | Trial court retains authority, but denial was correct because claims were barred | Long argued the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on his motion to withdraw plea | Court held jurisdiction question moot: motion was properly denied on res judicata grounds; affirmed |
| Whether, for mixed substances, state must prove weight of actual cocaine excluding fillers | State relied on existing record and lab identification; argued evidence supported conviction | Long argued statutory definition of cocaine excludes fillers and weight must be of pure cocaine | Court found claim was barred by res judicata (could have been raised earlier) and overruled the assignment |
| Whether evidence sufficiently established the substance was cocaine as defined by R.C. 2925.01(X) | State contended the trial record contained competent evidence identifying the substance | Long contended there was insufficient competent evidence to prove the substance was cocaine | Court held the sufficiency challenge was barred by res judicata and overruled the assignment |
| Whether new evidence or arguments outside the record could be considered on successive motion | State maintained only record evidence applies; opposed enlargement of record | Long presented additional factual assertions in his brief | Court refused to consider facts outside the trial record and applied res judicata to successive, piecemeal claims |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata bars issues that could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (establishing Ohio res judicata principles for post‑conviction claims)
- State v. Hooks, 92 Ohio St.3d 83 (appellate courts cannot add matters to the record not before the trial court)
- State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (same; limits on adding new evidence on appeal)