State v. Norman
2018 Ohio 2929
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Malik M. Norman was indicted with codefendants for aggravated murder, murder, felonious assault, and weapons offenses after a drive-by shooting that killed a five-year-old child. Ballistics showed the fatal bullet was fired from Hackett’s firearm.
- Norman pled guilty to an amended charge of involuntary manslaughter (first-degree felony) with a three-year firearm specification; all other counts were nolled as part of the plea. A presentence investigation was ordered.
- Trial court sentenced Norman to an aggregate 14-year prison term (11 years on the base count plus 3-year firearm specification). Norman appealed and later moved to withdraw his guilty plea based on allegedly newly discovered affidavits from codefendants recanting involvement.
- The trial court denied the postsentence motion to withdraw without a hearing; the court found the affidavits not credible and noted Norman had admitted trying to shoot the intended target at sentencing.
- On appeal, Norman argued (1) the trial court failed to consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 (sentence contrary to law), and (2) the court abused its discretion in denying his Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw the plea for newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is contrary to law for failing to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 | State: trial court complied with statutes and sentencing fell within statutory range | Norman: court failed to consider purposes/principles and seriousness/recidivism factors when imposing maximum sentence | Court: Overruled — record shows court considered statutory factors and sentenced within the permissible range |
| Whether postsentence motion to withdraw guilty plea should be granted under Crim.R. 32.1 for newly discovered affidavits | State: affidavits were not credible, appear coerced, and even if true would not exculpate Norman | Norman: affidavits from codefendants show he had no involvement and would have declined plea if they existed | Court: Overruled — trial court did not abuse discretion; affidavits were questionable, Norman admitted trying to shoot, and plea was knowing/voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502 (Ohio 2007) (stating a sentencing court need only indicate it considered statutory factors to satisfy R.C. 2929.11/2929.12)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (pre-sentence plea-withdrawal standard is liberal; post-sentence requires showing manifest injustice)
- State v. Blatnik, 17 Ohio App.3d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (trial court’s determination on plea-withdrawal reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Wynn, 131 Ohio App.3d 725 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (questionable recantation by witness does not necessarily require granting post-sentence plea withdrawal)