2018 Ohio 1426
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- In Aug. 2013 Pedro A. Reyes was indicted on multiple counts including trafficking in cocaine (among other drug and money-laundering charges); eleven counts related to Reyes.
- On Dec. 17, 2013 Reyes pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine (Count 3, first-degree felony) and money laundering (Count 5, third-degree felony) in exchange for specified dismissals and an agreed sentence of 11 years + 2 years consecutively and certain forfeitures.
- Reyes did not appeal his conviction or sentence at the time.
- In Feb. 2017 Reyes moved post-sentence under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was not informed that the offense level depended on the weight of actual cocaine (excluding fillers), relying on State v. Gonzales (Gonzales I).
- The State opposed, citing the Ohio Supreme Court’s March 2017 reconsideration decision (Gonzales II), which held that the entire compound (including fillers) counts toward weight for penalty purposes. The trial court denied Reyes’s motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- Reyes appealed; appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief finding no non-frivolous issues. The Second District affirmed the trial court, concluding Gonzales II made Reyes’s Gonzales I–based claim frivolous and no manifest injustice was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reyes’s plea was not knowing/voluntary because he wasn’t informed that offense level depends on weight of actual cocaine excluding fillers | Reyes argued he misunderstood the nature/penalty of the offense and relied on Gonzales I (weight = actual cocaine) | State argued Gonzales II controls (weight = entire compound including fillers), so Reyes’s claim is without merit | Court held claim frivolous under Gonzales II; plea withdrawal denied (no manifest injustice) |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing and making findings when it decided the motion as a matter of law | Reyes argued he submitted an affidavit and the State presented no evidence, so an evidentiary hearing and findings were required | State argued Gonzales II resolved the legal question and Reyes’s allegations, even accepted, would not show manifest injustice | Court held no hearing was required because Gonzales II disposed of the legal basis for the motion; ruling as a matter of law was proper |
| Whether Gonzales II was invalid or non-controlling because the Ohio Supreme Court impermissibly reconsidered Gonzales I | Reyes contended the court violated its practice rule and thus Gonzales II should not control | State argued intermediate courts must follow Ohio Supreme Court decisions; this Court lacks authority to overrule it | Court held it is bound by Gonzales II; Reyes’s challenge to reconsideration is not reviewable here and is frivolous |
| Whether applying Gonzales II retrospectively violated the Ex Post Facto Clause | Reyes claimed Gonzales II reduced the quantum of evidence required, making retroactive application unconstitutional | State argued Gonzales II merely affirmed the law as it existed in this district at the time of conviction, so no ex post facto problem | Court held no ex post facto violation; Gonzales II was consistent with prior local precedent and did not lessen penalty standards |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gonzales, 150 Ohio St.3d 261 (Ohio 2016) (Gonzales I — held offense level determined by weight of actual cocaine without fillers)
- State v. Gonzales, 150 Ohio St.3d 276 (Ohio 2017) (Gonzales II — on reconsideration held entire compound including fillers counts toward weight)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requirements for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (no constitutional right to counsel for post-conviction proceedings)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (weight of entire compound may be considered in determining controlled-substance weight)