State v. Ross
2013 Ohio 2766
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- In June 2006 Marc A. Ross entered a plea of no contest to operating a motor vehicle under the influence (OMVI) and was convicted and sentenced in Miami County Municipal Court.
- Ross filed a post‑sentence motion to vacate the 2006 conviction on October 18, 2012; an evidentiary hearing was held December 10, 2012.
- Ross argued he never changed his initial not‑guilty plea to no contest, or that any no‑contest plea was to a lesser offense (e.g., reckless operation), and that the trial court did not conduct a Crim.R. 11 colloquy or give him the sentencing entry.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding Ross not credible and noting he had been advised by multiple attorneys and that a signed sentencing entry existed showing a no‑contest plea and conviction for OMVI.
- Ross appealed the denial; the appellate court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion and whether a manifest injustice was shown under Crim.R. 32.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ross) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ross may withdraw a post‑sentence plea under Crim.R. 32.1 | Motion should be denied because movant failed to show manifest injustice; credibility for factual disputes rests with trial court | Ross argues plea was not knowingly entered to OMVI (or was to a lesser offense) and Crim.R. 11 colloquy was not performed | Denied: trial court did not abuse discretion; no manifest injustice shown |
| Whether claims that could have been raised on direct appeal are barred by res judicata | Res judicata bars issues that could have been raised earlier | Ross contends he did not appeal previously and therefore can raise them now | Res judicata applies to claims that could have been raised on direct appeal; Ross did not appeal earlier but court treated some claims as barred while others (outside the record) were considered |
| Whether factual claims outside the record (belief about the plea) overcome credibility finding | Trial court’s adverse credibility finding defeats the claim; credibility is for the trial court | Ross says peculiar facts place his claim outside the record and thus not barred | Court found Ross’s testimony not credible and rejected the outside‑the‑record claim; motion denied |
| Whether failure to conduct a Crim.R. 11 colloquy voids the plea | If a valid Crim.R. 11 deficiency existed it could show manifest injustice | Ross asserts no colloquy occurred and he was uninformed of consequences | Court noted these claims could have been raised on direct appeal and relied on trial court credibility; no manifest injustice found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (standard for reviewing post‑sentence plea withdrawal and abuse of discretion rule)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (abuse of discretion standard for plea withdrawal denials)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (definition and scope of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (Ohio 2002) (Crim.R. 32.1 and manifest injustice standard)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (movant bears burden to establish manifest injustice; credibility resolved by trial court)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1998) (definition of manifest injustice)
- Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299 (Ohio 1943) (res judicata principle)
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2010) (res judicata applied to claims that could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal)