State v. McGee
2015 Ohio 4908
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- McGee pleaded guilty in 1999 to multiple sex offenses against his five biological children under 13.
- He was indicted on 53 counts; he pled guilty to five counts and was sentenced to life terms for two rapes, five years each for two gross sexual impositions, and eight years for one attempted rape; all terms run concurrently except for attempted rape.
- This court previously affirmed the convictions on direct appeal, and McGee pursued multiple post-plea challenges to withdraw his guilty plea.
- In 2007 this court vacated a sentence term and remanded for resentencing due to improper postrelease control; a nunc pro tunc entry was issued in 2015 to correct the postrelease control advisement.
- McGee challenged the 2015 nunc pro tunc entry and raised issues about postrelease control and the SVP specification embedded in his indictment, claiming it rendered his plea invalid.
- The court limited review to the first assignment of error, upholding the denial of Crim.R. 32.1 relief and ruling that the SVP specification issues were not meritorious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the post-sentence motion to withdraw plea was properly denied | McGee argues denial creates manifest injustice due to misrepresentation about SVP/indictment terms | State asserts denial was proper; res judicata and lack of manifest injustice defeat relief | Denied; no manifest injustice or merit to withdrawal |
| Whether the SVP specification and plea were invalid under Smith | McGee claims SVP specification was improperly induced by misstatement of law | State argues Smith does not bar relief due to timing and context; law at indictment time supported the charge | Unpersuasive; Smith applicable but not violated; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 104 Ohio St.3d 106 (2004) (SVP specification cannot attach if same indictment covers conduct and specification)
- State v. Qualls, 131 Ohio St.3d 499 (2012) (remedy for PRC omission is nunc pro tunc entry)
- State v. Stansell, 2014-Ohio-1633 (8th Dist. Ohio) (illustrates SVP specification interpretation split prior to Smith)
- State v. Wooten, 2014-Ohio-3980 (9th Dist. Ohio) (post-Smith interpretation of SVP statute; modification to SVP requirement)