2013 Ohio 2018
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Marshall pled guilty to 18 of 35 counts and faced 8–12 year range; post-plea motions to withdraw denied; nunc pro tunc correction of post-release control; prior appellate rulings bar collateral challenges under res judicata; this appeal challenges plea validity and alleged conflicts of interest; the trial court’s rulings were affirmed on abuse of discretion grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-sentence motion to withdraw plea shows manifest injustice | Marshall (plaintiff) argues manifest injustice. | State asserts no manifest injustice occurred. | Denied; no manifest injustice established. |
| Whether res judicata bars review of these challenges | Marshall contends not barred by res judicata. | State argues res judicata applies to all aspects except post-release control. | Applied; claims barred. |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct/conflict of interest claims affect the plea validity | Marshall alleges conflict of interest and misconduct tainting pleas. | State asserts issues resolved previously and waiver by plea. | Barred by res judicata; no further relief. |
| Whether the plea was knowingly, intelligently entered and properly analyzed, including post-release control | Marshall claims lack of knowingness and Crim.R. 11 deficiencies. | State asserts prior rulings on knowingness; waiver via plea. | Waived; no abuse of discretion shown. |
| Whether the court properly considered the May 18, 2011 withdrawal motion | Marshall contends improper consideration of the motion. | State maintains record supports denial. | Overruled; no manifest injustice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (defining abuse of discretion and res judicata concepts in post-conviction review)
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (Ohio 2002) (post-sentence motion to withdraw plea requires manifest injustice showings)
- State v. Moore, 2011-Ohio-4546 (Ohio 2011) (Crim.R. 32.1 discretion and manifest injustice standard; abuse of discretion)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Redevelopment, 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (definition of abuse of discretion and standards of review)