State v. Melendez
2019 Ohio 533
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In 2003 Melendez pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to "15 years to life" plus a five-year term of postrelease control; he also had a separate robbery conviction. He did not appeal.
- In Jan. 2018 Melendez moved pro se to correct a "facially illegal sentence," arguing his murder sentence should be expressed as an indefinite term of 15 years to life and that postrelease control was improperly imposed. He did not raise plea-invalidity arguments in that written motion.
- The State agreed the murder sentence required the statutory indefinite form and that postrelease control was inapplicable to murder (an unclassified felony).
- At a resentencing hearing the court agreed to correct the sentence, but Melendez orally asked to withdraw his guilty plea based on erroneous postrelease-control advisals; defense counsel said he was unprepared to litigate that oral motion at the hearing.
- The trial court declined to consider the oral motion to withdraw the plea at that hearing, granted the correction of sentence to "an indefinite term of 15 years to life," and deleted the postrelease-control language. Melendez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Melendez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court denied due process by refusing to hear an oral presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea at the resentencing hearing | The resentencing was limited to correcting a facially illegal sentence; the oral request was effectively a postsentence claim and could be filed later | The court should have allowed and decided the oral motion to withdraw the plea at the hearing | Court held the oral motion attacked postrelease-control advisals and thus was a postsentence motion; refusing to decide it then did not prejudice Melendez because he could file it afterward |
| Whether Melendez received ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to seek a continuance or object to the court declining to hear the oral motion | No deprivation because there is no constitutional right to counsel for postsentence motions to withdraw a plea | Counsel should have sought time or objected so the oral motion could be preserved at resentencing | Court held no ineffective-assistance claim: defendant has no right to counsel for postsentence plea-withdrawal motions, so there can be no deprivation |
| Whether the trial court violated Crim.R. 32(A) by not affording allocution | Resentencing counsel was allowed to speak; the sentence was mandatory so allocution omission was harmless | Melendez asserts he personally was not asked and was denied the opportunity to speak; allocution is a fundamental right at sentencing | Court held any failure to personally address Melendez was harmless because the sentence was mandatory and no discretion existed; defendant was not prejudiced |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carter, 93 Ohio St.3d 581 (Ohio 2001) (no right to counsel for postsentence motion to withdraw plea)
- State v. Campbell, 90 Ohio St.3d 320 (Ohio 2000) (resentencing required for Crim.R. 32(A) allocution error unless harmless or invited)
- State v. Fisher, 99 Ohio St.3d 127 (Ohio 2003) (harmless-error test requires showing effect on substantial rights)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (defining "affect substantial rights" for harmless-error review)