State v. Lowe
2015 Ohio 382
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In June 2007 a Franklin County grand jury indicted Louis N. Lowe for aggravated murder with a firearm specification and having a weapon under disability.
- On May 15, 2009 Lowe pleaded guilty to murder with a three-year firearm specification; the weapon-under-disability count was dismissed.
- The parties jointly recommended, and the trial court imposed, 15 years-to-life consecutive to the three-year firearm specification. Lowe did not file a direct appeal.
- Lowe later sought postconviction relief; the trial court dismissed his petition and this court affirmed.
- On April 1, 2014 Lowe moved under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming (1) the court failed to advise him of confrontation and the right to testify, (2) the trial court improperly denied the motion as barred by res judicata, and (3) the court failed to notify him of post-release control. The trial court denied the motion as res judicata and Lowe appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lowe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court failed to inform Lowe that guilty plea waived confrontation and right to testify under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) | Res judicata bars the claim because Lowe could have raised it on direct appeal; final judgment is conclusive | Trial court failed to advise him of those rights at plea, rendering plea involuntary | Court: Claim is barred by res judicata because Lowe did not timely appeal; assignment overruled |
| Whether res judicata properly barred Lowe's Crim.R. 32.1 motion | Res judicata applies to claims raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal | Lowe argued the trial court erred by applying res judicata to his plea-withdrawal motion | Court: Question of law reviewed de novo; res judicata bars these claims because they could have been raised on direct appeal |
| Whether court erred by failing to inform Lowe of post-release control | State notes post-release control notice claims may not always be barred by res judicata | Lowe asserts plea was invalid because he was not told of post-release control and its consequences | Court: No post-release control applied to murder convictions (unclassified felony); record shows no PRC imposed, so claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) presumes plea involuntary)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (res judicata bars raising defenses or due-process claims postconviction that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (murder is an unclassified felony to which post-release control statute does not apply)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (motion to withdraw plea after sentence lies within trial court’s discretion)