State v. McCallister
2013 Ohio 5559
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- McCallister was indicted in 2007 for murder, kidnapping, tampering with evidence and two counts of aggravated murder; a supplemental indictment added a weapon-under-disability charge.
- On October 10, 2007, as part of a negotiated plea, he pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, an underlying firearm specification, and kidnapping, receiving a 16-year sentence.
- In October 2012, McCallister moved to withdraw his guilty plea and for sentencing, arguing he was not properly informed that post-release control was mandatory.
- The trial court denied the motion; on appeal, McCallister argues the plea was invalid and the sentence void due to improper post-release-control information.
- The appellate court evaluates the post-sentence motion under the manifest-injustice standard and reviews whether post-release-control was properly imposed, and whether the plea withdrawal should be granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion denying the post-sentence motion | McCallister argues improper post-release-control information voids plea | McCallister asserts lack of proper information constitutes manifest injustice | No abuse; no manifest injustice; post-release control properly imposed and withdrawal denied |
| Whether post-release control was properly imposed and the plea colloquy complied | McCallister contends mandatory post-release control and nine-month per-violation penalty were not correctly stated | Court informed him of five-year post-release control and potential additional time; not exactly nine months per violation but not prejudicial | Post-release control properly imposed; any overstatement did not prejudice the plea; sentencing entry sufficient |
| Whether the plea should be vacated due to plea colloquy deficiencies | Complete failure to inform about post-release control renders the plea invalid | There was some information given; not a complete failure; overstatement not prejudicial | Plea not vacated; no manifest injustice; post-sentence motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bloomer, 122 Ohio St.3d 200 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (mandatory postrelease control requires clear sentencing-entry language)
- State v. Jordan, 104 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio Supreme Court 2004) (clear informing of post-release conditions required)
- State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (Ohio Supreme Court 2009) (post-release-control requirements; Crim.R. 11 compliance)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (complete failure to advise on post-release control renders plea invalid)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (overstatement of potential prison time does not prejudice plea)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio Supreme Court 1992) (manifest-injustice standard for post-sentencing withdrawal)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio Supreme Court 1977) (Crim.R. 32.1 standard for post-sentence withdrawal)
- State v. Brown, 2010-Ohio-2328 (Ohio 9th Dist.) (post-sentence withdrawal requires manifest injustice)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (remedy limited to the affected portion of sentence)
- State v. Olah, 2009-Ohio-3651 (Ohio 9th Dist.) (issues of post-release control and plea validity)
- State v. Billiter, 2012 Ohio LEXIS 2725 (Ohio Supreme Court 2012) ((not included due to non-official reporter citation))