2014 Ohio 688
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Indictments in two cases (11CR356 and 11CR443) charged Morrison with multiple offenses including pattern of corrupt activity and B&E.
- Plea negotiations led to dismissal of one count, amendment of another to an attempt, and Morrison entered Alford pleas to remaining counts.
- Plea forms listed Alford notation; trial court acknowledged Alford pleas during the plea hearing.
- Morrison moved to withdraw pleas under Crim.R.32.1; the trial court did not rule on withdrawal due to pending appeal.
- This court granted delayed appeal and remanded to dismiss and amend counts per the plea agreement; later, nunc pro tunc corrections were entered.
- The court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment, denying Morrison’s assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim.R.11 inquiry was required for an Alford plea | Morrison asserted inadequate inquiry | Morrison contends insufficient inquiry into reasons for Alford plea | No reversible error; colloquy sufficient |
| Whether there was a hearing on Crim.R.32.1 motion to withdraw | Premature due to pending appeal | Trial court should have held a hearing | Premature denial; not rule on withdrawal yet |
| Whether nunc pro tunc corrections were proper without a hearing | Corrections reflect prior record properly | Corrections should reflect actual decisions | Corrected record to reflect on-the-record discussions; no error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Padgett, 67 Ohio App.3d 332 (Ohio 2nd Dist.1990) (requires inquiry into reasons for Alford plea when protestations of innocence exist)
- State v. Hayes, 101 Ohio App.3d 73 (Ohio 3rd Dist.1998) (more detailed Crim.R.11 inquiry when Alford notation is used)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. (1970)) (establishes validity of Alford plea where defendant maintains innocence)