State v. Miller
2017 Ohio 2801
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Miller was indicted for illegal manufacture of drugs (methamphetamine) near a school; 280 children were at the nearby school when the search occurred.
- Miller was found incompetent to stand trial after a psychiatric evaluation; the court ordered treatment and authorized involuntary medication to restore competency.
- After treatment the court found Miller competent; he pled guilty under a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and was sentenced to a mandatory seven-year prison term. Miller did not appeal.
- Over the following year Miller filed multiple pro se postconviction / post-sentence motions asserting sovereign-citizen theories, lack of competency at plea, involuntary medication, and ineffective assistance of counsel; the trial court denied relief and successive motions were rejected as barred by res judicata.
- On appeal Miller challenged the denial of his most recent post-sentence motion to withdraw his plea. The court affirmed, holding Miller’s claims were either barred by res judicata, waived, or without merit and no evidentiary hearing was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competency at plea | Miller argues he was not competent when he pled and plea therefore was involuntary | Trial court found competency restored before plea; plea accepted after full Crim.R. 11 colloquy | Court: Claims barred by res judicata and, on the merits, no error — court gave extreme deference to competency finding |
| Involuntary medication | Miller argues competency finding was coerced because he was forcibly medicated | State relied on psychiatric reports and stipulations; court authorized medication as necessary to restore competency | Court: Authorization and use supported by record; claim barred by res judicata and without merit |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Miller claims counsel coerced plea, failed to investigate, promised a future appeal or a mental-health facility sentence | Record shows signed plea form and plea colloquy denying coercion; counsel advised on consequences; no contemporaneous appeal | Court: Claims barred by res judicata; counsel’s advice to accept plea not ineffective; claims lack merit |
| Procedural default / waiver | Miller raises additional theories for the first time on appeal | Trial court and state assert issues not raised below are waived | Court: Issues not raised in trial court are forfeited and will not be considered on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (abuse of discretion is shown when a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- State v. Mays, 174 Ohio App.3d 681 (8th Dist. 2008) (an evidentiary hearing on a post-sentence motion to withdraw a plea is required only if the defendant's factual allegations, accepted as true, would require withdrawal)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (defendant seeking post-sentence withdrawal bears burden to show manifest injustice)