State v. Moore, 2016 Ohio 7380

Corvawn Moore pled guilty to aggravated robbery and felonious assault with firearm specifications on December 10, 2013 and was sentenced to an aggregate 10-year prison term; he did not appeal that conviction/sentence.
On July 9, 2015 Moore filed post-judgment motions (including allied-offense and sentencing challenges); the trial court denied them and this Court affirmed in State v. Moore, 2016-Ohio-1339.
On April 14, 2016 Moore filed a pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea (styled as "Motion for Leave to Withdraw Guilty Plea"); the state opposed, asserting res judicata and no manifest injustice.
The trial court denied the motion on April 20, 2016, adopting the state's reasons; Moore appealed and sought IFP status and appointed appellate counsel (IFP granted; counsel denied).
Moore argued: (1) the appellate court improperly denied his requests for transcript and appointed counsel; (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convey a five-year plea offer (and related Santobello/plea-agreement claims); and (3) post-release control language was defective.
The appellate court treated the motion as a petition for postconviction relief, reviewed for abuse of discretion, and affirmed the trial court's denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate court erred in denying Moore's repeated requests for preparation of transcript and appointment of counsel	Appellee (State) argued prior rulings and procedures governed; no reversible error	Moore claimed denial of transcript and counsel deprived him of due process, right to counsel, and meaningful appeal	Affirmed: appellate court bound by prior rulings; assignment overruled
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not informing Moore of a 5-year plea offer, entitling Moore to withdraw his plea	State argued motion was a postconviction petition lacking proof (transcript/affidavit) and no demonstrated prejudice	Moore claimed counsel failed to communicate a favorable plea offer, constituting ineffective assistance and causing manifest injustice	Affirmed: treated as postconviction relief; Moore failed to supply transcript or affidavit showing he would have accepted the offer or that the court would have accepted it; no prejudice shown
Whether post-release control language in sentencing entry was void	State argued issue already litigated and barred by the law of the case	Moore argued sentencing entry failed to include required language about incremental violation time, making post-release control void	Affirmed: barred by law of the case (previous appeal addressed this issue)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (trial court discretion to accept or reject plea agreements; no absolute right to have plea accepted)
McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759 (right to effective assistance of counsel acknowledged)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (omitted transcript leads court to presume regularity of proceedings)
Reynolds v. State, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (postconviction relief defined under R.C. 2953.21 for claims raised after direct appeal)
Gondor v. State, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (appellate review of postconviction petition is abuse-of-discretion standard)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
Griffin v. United States, 330 F.3d 733 (failure to notify defendant of plea offer can constitute deficient performance)