State v. Pemberton
2011 Ohio 373
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Pemberton was indicted in Feb 2008 on multiple counts including two counts of attempted aggravated murder and two counts of aggravated burglary, with several other charges.
- The trial court ordered a psychiatric evaluation after he pleaded not guilty by insanity, and a later evaluation found no severe mental defect at the time of the offense.
- In Aug 2008, the state and Pemberton negotiated a plea: guilty to two felonious assault counts with gun specifications and one abduction; other counts were dismissed and a 23-year sentence was recommended.
- Pemberton initially appealed untimely, sought a delayed appeal, and later had a joint motion to dismiss the direct appeal granted; he then pursued postconviction relief which was denied.
- He filed a Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, attaching affidavits alleging ineffective assistance and other claims.
- The trial court denied the motion as untimely, procedurally barred by res judicata, and not showing manifest injustice; the court declined to hold a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Pemberton argues substandard representation by Lentes merits relief. | State asserts res judicata bars raising these claims here. | Res judicata bars review of ineffective-assistance claims in Crim.R. 32.1 motion. |
| Conflict of interest | Pemberton claims conflicts between judge, counsel, and victims affected pleas. | State contends the claims are barred by res judicata or not properly raised. | Res judicata bars review of conflicts; no postconviction path shown. |
| Oral plea agreement | Pemberton alleges an off-the-record oral plea deal different from the on-record agreement. | State asserts no evidence of such an oral agreement and on-record agreement governs. | Res judicata bars consideration; no evidence of a surviving off-record agreement. |
| Hearing on Crim.R. 32.1 motion | Motion warranted an evidentiary hearing due to alleged injustices. | Hearing not required where the claims are barred by res judicata. | No hearing required; court did not abuse discretion given res judicata and lack of manifest injustice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vincent, 2003-Ohio-3998 (Ohio) (limits on post-sentence motions; res judicata principles applied)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (basis for res judicata effect in postconviction contexts)
- State v. Lott, 2002-Ohio-2752 (Ohio) (precludes raised on direct or postconviction relief from being relitigated)
- Nathan, 99 Ohio App.3d 722 (1995) (standard for evidentiary hearing on Crim.R. 32.1 motions)
- State v. Jacobson, 2003-Ohio-1201 (Ohio) (manifest injustice standard and hearing considerations)
- State v. Moore, 2002-Ohio-5748 (Ohio) (Crim.R. 32.1 hearing standards and manifest injustice)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Lentes, 120 Ohio St.3d 431 (2008) (disciplinary action involving counsel; relevance to conflicts)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (defining abuse of discretion standards in appellate review)