2020 Ohio 1042
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- In March 2012 Atravion Preston pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated burglary and one count of rape and was later sentenced to an aggregate 12-year prison term.
- Eight days after his plea he moved to withdraw it, claiming he did not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily plead guilty; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and denied the motion.
- Preston appealed that denial; this court affirmed in 2013 (Preston I), finding the record showed his plea was knowing and that the trial court properly weighed the Crim.R. 32.1 factors.
- In September 2018 Preston filed a pro se post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw and a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, conflict of interest, actual innocence, and that he was deceived into pleading guilty.
- The trial court granted the State’s summary-judgment motion in May 2019: it overruled the post-sentence plea-withdrawal motion (finding no manifest injustice and that claims could have been raised earlier) and dismissed the post-conviction petition as untimely under R.C. 2953.21 with no applicable exception.
- Preston appealed; the appellate court affirmed both rulings.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Preston's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Preston’s post-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas (manifest injustice) | Preston’s claims concern matters that occurred before or at the plea and could have been raised on direct appeal; res judicata bars relitigation; ineffective-assistance allegations belong in a post-conviction petition | Counsel was ineffective (failed to investigate DNA/witnesses, conflict from prior prosecutor role, deceived/advised Preston to plead guilty despite innocence); plea was not knowing/voluntary | Affirmed. Court held Crim.R. 32.1 relief was unavailable because the issues could have been raised on direct appeal and are barred by res judicata; no manifest injustice shown and no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the trial court erred by dismissing Preston’s petition for post-conviction relief without a hearing as untimely | The petition was filed roughly five years after the direct appeal and is untimely under R.C. 2953.21; Preston failed to satisfy the narrow exception in R.C. 2953.23 (no showing he was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts nor a newly recognized retroactive right) | The petition asserts ineffective assistance, actual innocence, and other grounds for relief; Preston contends he could not have discovered or raised these earlier | Affirmed. Petition is untimely and Preston did not meet the statutory exception, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate it. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (Ohio 1977) (defendant bears burden to show manifest injustice to withdraw a plea after sentencing)
- State v. Ketterer, 935 N.E.2d 9 (Ohio 2010) (res judicata generally applies to Crim.R. 32.1 motions; issues that were or could have been raised earlier are barred)
- State v. Rozell, 111 N.E.3d 861 (Ohio App. 2018) (appellate review of trial court decisions on plea-withdrawal motions is for abuse of discretion)