State v. Moore, 2022 Ohio 522

In 1995 L.K. reported a rape and a rape kit was collected; she initially refused to identify her assailant.
The rape kit was submitted to BCI in 2012; BCI developed a male DNA profile in 2013 that later matched DNA from a homicide gun magazine (2014).
A John Doe–DNA indictment for the 1995 rape/kidnapping was filed May 20, 2015, eight days before the 20‑year statute-of-limitations would expire; the victim gave only a nickname and did not identify Moore from a photo array shown April 22, 2015 (Moore’s photo was included).
Moore was arrested on unrelated 2014 manslaughter charges in February 2018; his DNA (collected then) matched the rape kit and the state moved May 17, 2018 to amend the John Doe indictment to name Moore.
On August 29, 2018 Moore pleaded guilty (rape reduced to sexual battery; kidnapping dismissed; firearm specs dismissed in manslaughter case) after extensive on-the-record deliberation; he moved to withdraw his plea before sentencing but the trial court denied it and sentenced him to two concurrent two‑year terms.
On appeal Moore argued ineffective assistance of counsel, principally that counsel failed to move to dismiss based on the statute‑of‑limitations (and related failure to challenge preindictment delay); the Eighth District reversed and remanded, finding counsel deficient for failing to raise the statute‑of‑limitations defense and that Moore’s plea was therefore involuntary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss based on the statute‑of‑limitations	State: statute was tolled by the John Doe–DNA indictment and the delay resulted from the need to develop a DNA match	Moore: state had leads (victim knew him, nickname, phone calls, photo array) before the SOL expired, so the John Doe indictment did not toll SOL and counsel should have moved to dismiss	Held: Counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss; record shows lack of reasonable diligence by state before SOL expiration, so a dismissal motion had a reasonable probability of success, rendering Moore’s plea involuntary
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Moore’s pre‑sentence motion to withdraw his plea without a substantive hearing	State: plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by counsel’s advice; denial was proper	Moore: he sought to withdraw based on newly reviewed audiotaped evidence and coercion/fear; sought to withdraw before sentencing	Held: Moot (court reversed on IAC/statute‑of‑limitations ground so did not decide this issue)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland in guilty‑plea context — defendant must show counsel’s errors likely changed plea decision)
Xie v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio standard for plea withdrawal and voluntariness analysis)
Bradley v. State, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (Ohio recognition of Strickland framework)
Climaco v. State, 85 Ohio St.3d 582 (purpose and operation of the criminal statute‑of‑limitations)
State v. Mohammad Khoshknabi, 111 N.E.3d 813 (Ohio appellate discussion of ineffective assistance claims post‑plea)