State v. Morrison
2013 Ohio 5684
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On Sept. 5, 2005, Willard Morrison shot at a uniformed Adams County sheriff and later rammed the officer's disabled cruiser; both suffered severe injuries.
- Morrison was indicted on two counts of attempted murder (first-degree felonies); count one included a firearm specification.
- After competency evaluations, Morrison pled no contest to both counts and the firearm specification on Oct. 1, 2007; the court imposed consecutive terms totaling 25 years.
- This court affirmed Morrison’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal (State v. Morrison, 2008).
- Morrison filed multiple postconviction and post-sentence motions to withdraw his plea, including a 2012 counseled motion supported by three affidavits alleging counsel misadvised him about likely sentence length and expected merger of counts.
- The trial court denied the 2012 motion; Morrison appealed. The appellate court held his claims were barred by res judicata and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Morrison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morrison’s motion to withdraw his no-contest plea should be granted under Crim.R. 32.1 (manifest injustice) | The motion is barred by res judicata because issues were or could have been raised earlier; the State defends the convictions and prior rulings. | Counsel was ineffective: (1) advised Morrison he faced a maximum of 17 years (not 25) and (2) failed to seek merger of the two attempted-murder counts, rendering the plea involuntary. | Denied. The court held Morrison’s claims are barred by res judicata; prior direct appeal decided voluntariness and merger, and the new affidavits do not meet the cogency threshold to overcome res judicata. |
| Whether counsel’s alleged misadvice about sentence length rendered the plea involuntary | Res judicata bars reconsideration; Morrison previously argued voluntariness and lost. | New affidavits show counsel and Morrison believed counts would merge and sentence would be lower, so plea was not knowing/voluntary. | Denied. The court found the voluntariness issue already adjudicated on direct appeal; affiants’ statements do not overcome res judicata. |
| Whether counsel’s failure to request merger constituted ineffective assistance causing prejudice | Merger and alleged counsel failure were litigated and rejected on direct appeal. | Failure to move for merger prejudiced Morrison because separate convictions produced consecutive sentencing. | Denied. Even assuming deficiency, prejudice cannot be shown because this court previously held the offenses were separate and merger was not warranted. |
| Whether new affidavits constitute competent, material evidence outside the record to overcome res judicata | The affidavits are insufficiently cogent to overcome res judicata because they merely duplicate arguments decided on direct appeal. | Affidavits from trial counsel, Morrison, and his daughter present new evidence that counsel misadvised and was distracted. | Denied. The court concluded affidavits only add more evidence to previously adjudicated claims and do not meet the threshold of cogency to defeat res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1998) (defines "manifest injustice" as a clear or openly unjust act)
- Perry v. State, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (res judicata bars re-litigation of defenses and due-process claims that were or could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (appellate review of Crim.R. 32.1 motions and abuse-of-discretion standard)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (Crim.R. 32.1 allows post-sentence withdrawal only to correct manifest injustice)
- State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (Ohio 1985) (postconviction res judicata may be overcome by competent, relevant, material evidence outside the record meeting a threshold of cogency)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata applies in postconviction proceedings but is not absolute)
- State v. Goff, 82 Ohio St.3d 123 (Ohio 1998) (discusses ineffectiveness standards)
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1982) (claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata)
- State v. Clark, 71 Ohio St.3d 466 (Ohio 1994) (defines abuse of discretion standard)