State v. McFarland
2013 Ohio 2019
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- McFarland challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to withdraw no contest pleas to rape and gross sexual imposition.
- The conviction and sentence were upheld by this court in State v. McFarland, 2010-Ohio-2395.
- McFarland moved to suppress statements from a police interview, arguing Miranda waiver was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary and that coercion occurred.
- The suppression court ruled the Miranda waiver was valid and the interview was not oppressive.
- After the no contest pleas, the trial court lost jurisdiction to entertain a motion to withdraw following the appellate affirmation of the conviction.
- On appeal, McFarland asserts two related errors: improper Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy and manifest injustice from duress/ineffective assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11. | State contends the colloquy satisfied waiver of rights. | McFarland argues the court failed to establish knowing, voluntary waiver. | No reversible error; colloquy substantially complied with Crim.R. 11. |
| Whether withdrawing the no contest plea is warranted to correct manifest injustice. | State asserts no manifest injustice warrants withdrawal. | McFarland argues ineffective assistance and coercive conditions created duress. | Withdrawal denied; no manifest injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (Ohio 1978) (trial court loses jurisdiction to withdraw plea after appellate affirmation)
- State v. McFarland, 2010-Ohio-2395 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23411, 2010) (affirmation of conviction precludes post-appeal withdrawal)