State v. Mackey
2014 Ohio 5372
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- In Sept. 2009 Rickey Mackey pleaded guilty (to possession of crack, trafficking in crack, and conspiracy) and was sentenced by the Scioto County Court of Common Pleas to an agreed aggregate 18-year prison term.
- Mackey did not file a timely direct appeal from the September 2009 judgment of conviction and sentence.
- He filed a first pro se motion for leave to file a delayed appeal in Mar. 2012; this court denied it.
- In Apr. 2014, more than 4½ years after sentencing, Mackey filed a second pro se motion for leave to file a delayed appeal and, the same day, a Crim.R. 32.1 post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. His central claim: the plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the trial court failed to inform him of the maximum penalties and that the sentence included mandatory prison time.
- This court denied the second delayed-appeal motion as successive and, after the trial court stated it lacked jurisdiction while the delayed-appeal motion was pending, the trial court ultimately denied Mackey’s Crim.R. 32.1 motion. Mackey appealed; this decision affirms the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mackey’s postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea could be granted because his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered (trial court failed to advise of maximum/mandatory penalties) | Mackey argued the trial court failed to inform him of the maximum possible penalties and that any prison sentence would be mandatory, so his plea was involuntary. | State argued Mackey’s claims were barred by res judicata because they were or could have been raised on direct appeal, and Mackey failed to timely appeal. | Court held res judicata bars Mackey’s claims; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Crim.R. 32.1 motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (burden on defendant to show manifest injustice to withdraw plea after sentence)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily)
- State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (Ohio 2011) (same; Crim.R. 11 advisements required for valid plea)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars raising claims in later proceedings that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2010) (res judicata applied to bar claims in post-sentence motions that could have been raised on direct appeal)