State v. Norris
2013 Ohio 1010
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Norris pleaded guilty in 2004 to murder with a firearm specification, aggravated robbery, and tampering with evidence; State dismissed other counts, and he received a 33-years-to-life aggregate sentence; he did not appeal.
- In 2010 Norris moved for sentencing relief arguing he was not properly advised about postrelease control; trial court denied the motion and he appealed.
- The Fifth District remanded in 2010 for a de novo resentencing because the original sentencing failed to inform him of postrelease control.
- At the December 2010 resentencing Norris filed a motion to withdraw his guilty/no contest plea; the court limited the hearing to postrelease control and notified him that postrelease control was mandatory for five years.
- The court later held that the postrelease-control issue was resolved on remand and that his withdrawal motion should be treated as a post-sentencing motion to withdraw, barred by res judicata; the appeal affirmed the denial of the motion.
- The final judgment affirmed the common pleas court’s denial of the motion to withdraw and assigned costs to Norris.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied withdrawal of the plea | Norris argues Sarkozy requires withdrawal since he wasn’t advised about mandatory postrelease control at plea | State contends the issue is barred by res judicata and the Bezak/Fischer framework limits relief to void postrelease-control portions | Overruled; res judicata bars the claim; only void postrelease-control portion may be addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008-Ohio-509) (failure to inform at plea requires vacation/remand unless barred by res judicata)
- State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (2009-Ohio-1577) (void sentence postrelease-control issue; motion treated as pre-sentencing/voided sentence context)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (only the void portion of postrelease-control must be corrected; Bezak syllabus refined)
- State v. Bezak, 114 Ohio St.3d 94 (2007-Ohio-3250) (bezak principle that void sentence part may be corrected; Bezak syllabus amended by Fischer)
- State v. Montgomery, 2011-Ohio-6145 (2011-Ohio-6145) (treatment of pre/post-resentencing withdrawals in light of Bezak/Fischer)
- State v. Hazel, 2011-Ohio-4427 (2011-Ohio-4427) (application of res judicata to motion to withdraw plea)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010-Ohio-3831) (limits assertion of claims on appeal or trial under res judicata)