State v. Sherman
2011 Ohio 1810
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2003 Sherman was indicted on aggravated murder, murder, aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and kidnapping and pleaded guilty to amended Count 3 (involuntary manslaughter) and Count 4 (aggravated burglary).
- Sherman received an agreed sentence of 20 years; other charges were nolled.
- He appealed his sentence previously, with the sentence upheld on appeal (State v. Sherman, 2004-Ohio-6636).
- In 2007 Sherman moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court denied and no appeal followed.
- In 2010 he again moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court denied, prompting the present appeal on Crim.R. 32.1 grounds.
- The thrust of Sherman’s second motion was that the trial court failed to inform him of constitutional rights during Crim.R. 11 plea proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars relief on Crim.R. 32.1 motion | Sherman | Sherman asserted he raised/ could have raised claims in a prior proceeding | Yes, barred by res judicata. |
| Whether the Crim.R. 11 compliance and informed-rights were properly conveyed | Sherman | Sherman contends the court failed to strictly inform rights | Court complied; rights explained in intelligible manner. |
| Whether failure to execute a jury waiver form voids plea | Sherman | Guilty plea waives jury trial; waiver form unnecessary | Plea valid; jury waiver form not required. |
| Whether the right against self-incrimination and related rights were properly conveyed | Sherman | Rights not properly conveyed | Crim.R. 11 compliance satisfied; authority supports substantial compliance. |
| Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 requirements relating to compulsory process and confrontation | Sherman | Rights surrounding confrontation and compulsory process were not properly conveyed | Strict compliance not required in literal wording; record shows intelligible explanation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 119 Ohio St.3d 422 (2008-Ohio-4608) (res judicata applies to Crim.R. 32.1 claims raised or could have been raised earlier)
- State v. Fountain, 2010-Ohio-1202 (Cuyahoga App. 2010) (Crim.R. 32.1 claims barred if raised in prior proceedings)
- State v. McGee, 2009-Ohio-3374 (Cuyahoga App. 2009) (res judicata bar on similar claims)
- State v. Pickens, 2009-Ohio-1791 (Cuyahoga App. 2009) (res judicata bar on Crim.R. 32.1 claims)
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (postconviction relief may defeat res judicata only with outside-record evidence)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (strict compliance with Crim.R. 11 not required to be literal; intelligible explanation suffices)