2016 Ohio 3284
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In Sept. 2013, Bobby L. Panning pled guilty to one count of sexual battery (third-degree felony) for conduct in Oct. 2002; the trial court sentenced him to 60 months and classified him as a Tier III sex offender.
- On initial appeal (Panning I) the court reversed classification and consecutive-sentence rulings and remanded for resentencing; ineffective-assistance claim left moot.
- At resentencing (Aug. 13, 2014) Panning again pleaded guilty; the court imposed 60 months and designated him a sexual predator under the then-applicable law; that conviction was affirmed on appeal (Panning II).
- On Aug. 13, 2015 Panning (pro se) moved in the trial court to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming coercion by trial counsel and presenting notarized affidavits from two witnesses as allegedly newly discovered evidence.
- The affidavits did not dispute guilt or supply new facts material to the offense; one described counsel’s advice and the other described residence/visitation facts—facts known before the plea and on prior appeals.
- The trial court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the Ohio Supreme Court’s rule that a trial court lacks power to vacate a judgment already affirmed on appeal, and Panning appealed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to decide a post-appeal Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw a guilty plea | Trial court: special-prosecutors rule bars withdrawal after appellate affirmance | Panning: exception for newly discovered evidence or Davis distinction permits post-appeal relief | Court held no jurisdiction to grant plea withdrawal; motion challenged the conviction and conflicted with appellate judgment |
| Whether Panning presented newly discovered evidence sufficient to permit plea withdrawal | Trial court: no newly discovered evidence shown; affidavits did not bear on guilt or were previously known | Panning: affidavits from wife and prior wife constituted newly discovered evidence and showed coercion | Court held affidavits were not newly discovered and concerned facts known before plea; they did not justify withdrawal |
| Whether counsel coerced Panning into pleading guilty (threat that refusal would result in life sentence) | Panning: counsel’s advice amounted to coercion and threat, undermining voluntariness of plea | State: alleged threats/advice were known at time of plea and appellate review; no evidence supporting coercion altering voluntariness | Court rejected coercion claim as unsupported and not newly discovered; voluntariness not shown to be vitiated |
| Whether Davis (new-trial jurisdiction for newly discovered evidence) allows trial-court action here | Panning: relies on Davis distinction allowing motions based on newly discovered evidence after appeal | State: Davis addressed motions for new trial, not plea-withdrawal motions; facts here were known earlier | Court held Davis inapplicable; motion was a direct attack on affirmed conviction and trial court lacked power to grant it |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant Crim.R. 32.1 plea withdrawal after appellate affirmance except for matters not inconsistent with appellate review)
- State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 (2011) (trial court retains jurisdiction to decide a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence when appellate court has not decided that specific issue)