State v. McBride
2017 Ohio 891
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christopher McBride pled guilty in 2002 to multiple felonies (including seven first-degree felonies) arising from violent crimes and was sentenced in 2003 to an aggregate 40-year prison term plus other concurrent terms.
- He did not file a direct appeal; in 2015 he filed a pro se Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the sentencing entry failed to state the order in which consecutive sentences were to be served.
- The trial court denied the motion without a hearing; McBride appealed the denial as an abuse of discretion.
- The record on appeal did not include the transcript of the plea or sentencing hearings; the Court of Appeals therefore presumed the hearings were conducted regularly.
- The court addressed both whether a sentencing-entry ambiguity is grounds for post‑sentence plea withdrawal and whether the sentencing entry properly imposed statutorily mandated post‑release control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying McBride’s post‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea | State: Motion properly denied; defendant did not show manifest injustice | McBride: Sentencing-entry ambiguity (no order of consecutive sentences) justifies withdrawal | Denied: No manifest injustice shown; plea presumed valid absent transcripts and withdrawal is reserved for extraordinary cases |
| Whether an ambiguous sentencing entry about order of consecutive sentences warrants plea withdrawal | State: Ambiguity, if any, does not support plea withdrawal; sentencing errors are remedied by other procedures | McBride: Lack of stated sequence makes entry ambiguous and prejudicial | Denied: Court rejects that mere absence of sequence is reversible error; ambiguity must produce a concrete prejudice, which McBride did not allege |
| Whether trial court failed to properly impose post‑release control in the written entry | State: Sentencing hearing presumably notified defendant; entry language was defective but hearing presumed regular | McBride: Entry’s language (“up to a maximum of 5 years”) is incorrect for mandatory five‑year PRC | Partially reversed: Court finds the entry’s PRC language defective; remands for nunc pro tunc correction (Fischer/Qualls framework) |
| Proper remedy for defective post‑release control for pre‑R.C. 2929.191 sentences | State: Nunc pro tunc entry acceptable if hearing complied; if not, de novo hearing required | McBride: Seeks correction/remedy for PRC error | Court: Because transcript absent, presumes hearing compliance and orders nunc pro tunc correction; notes Fischer/Singleton distinctions for pre‑statute sentences |
Key Cases Cited
- Caraballo v. State, 17 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio 1985) (post‑sentence plea withdrawal standard and discouragement of plea testing)
- Smith v. State, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (trial court discretion on post‑sentence plea withdrawal)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (Ohio 1980) (presumption of regularity when portions of the record are omitted)
- Singleton v. State, 124 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2009) (R.C. 2929.191 cannot be applied retroactively; de novo hearing required for certain pre‑statute sentences)
- Fischer v. State, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (when PRC is not imposed, that portion of sentence is void and limited new hearing is for proper PRC imposition)
- Qualls v. State, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (Ohio 2012) (omission of PRC from journal may be corrected by nunc pro tunc where defendant was properly advised at hearing)