State v. Mulkey
2020 Ohio 3531
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In 1993 Brian Mulkey pleaded no contest to a domestic-violence charge and was sentenced to six months’ probation; he did not appeal at that time.
- Twenty-six years later Mulkey filed a post‑sentence motion under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his no‑contest plea, claiming he did not understand the disabling/enhancing effects of a domestic‑violence conviction.
- Mulkey submitted only a one‑page affidavit in support of his motion; he did not present other evidentiary materials.
- The Akron Municipal Court denied the motion without a hearing, holding Mulkey’s claims were barred by res judicata and, alternatively, that he failed to show a manifest injustice.
- Mulkey appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and erred by not holding a hearing.
- The Ninth District affirmed: post‑sentence plea withdrawal is extraordinary relief; claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata, and a hearing is unnecessary where the record (and lack of evidentiary support) forecloses relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mulkey) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Mulkey’s post‑sentence motion to withdraw his no‑contest plea | Plea was not made knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently because the court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(D) and he didn’t understand consequences | Motion is barred by res judicata because these claims could have been raised on direct appeal; no manifest injustice shown | Denial affirmed; abuse of discretion not shown (res judicata bars the claim) |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying a hearing on the post‑sentence motion | Mulkey argued he was entitled to a hearing to develop facts showing manifest injustice | State argued no hearing required where record shows claims are barred and movant submitted no evidentiary materials demonstrating manifest injustice | No hearing required; denial without hearing was proper because res judicata applied and Mulkey failed to present evidence of manifest injustice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (court explains res judicata bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (standard of review for plea‑withdrawal motions: abuse of discretion)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (Crim.R. 32.1 claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (trial court must hold a hearing on a pre‑sentence plea‑withdrawal motion when reasonable grounds exist)