State v. Smith
2017 Ohio 2616
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Shawn Michael Smith pleaded guilty (negotiated plea) to: Illegal Manufacture of Drugs (R.C. 2925.04, merged with Count 2), Illegal Assembly/Possession of Chemicals for Manufacture (R.C. 2925.041), and Aggravated Possession of Drugs (R.C. 2925.11). Sentences were to run concurrently; aggregate mandatory term was four years.
- At plea and sentencing the parties and judge discussed that the possession charge (Count 3) was based on 191.13 grams of methamphetamine found in liquid form (mixture), not crystalline product. The court construed Ohio law to use the full weight of a mixture that contains any methamphetamine to determine grade.
- Two days before sentencing Smith filed a pro se letter to withdraw his guilty plea; the trial court denied the motion and imposed sentence. The Fifth District affirmed on direct appeal.
- Smith later filed multiple motions (including App.R. 26(B) and motions to reconsider) arguing ineffective assistance of counsel and that the counts should have merged under State v. Ruff; those motions were denied. He then filed a petition for post-conviction relief and a motion to disqualify the Guernsey County Prosecutor’s Office; the trial court denied both.
- Smith’s post-conviction claims were largely premised on (a) alleged counsel failures including failure to seek merger of counts and failure to challenge the weight/identity testing of the substance, and (b) alleged prosecutorial misstatements about the basis for Count 3 (a mistaken statement by the state described the possession charge as based on a powder on his belt).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying post-conviction petition to withdraw guilty plea | Smith: plea withdrawal warranted; counsel ineffective; record defects about substance identity/weight | State: issues were or could have been raised on direct appeal; record and plea colloquy show understanding and agreement | Denied — res judicata and record show plea was knowing; no new evidence to overcome preclusion |
| Whether Smith received ineffective assistance of counsel | Smith: counsel failed to move to merge all counts (Ruff), failed to properly challenge weight/identity testing, and otherwise performed deficiently | State: counsel litigated weight/ testing issues; plea benefitted Smith; merger as to Count 3 was part of plea agreement | Denied — Smith failed to proffer evidence dehors the record showing counsel’s substantial breach and prejudice; claims were subject to res judicata |
| Whether Count 3 (aggravated possession) should merge with manufacturing counts | Smith: Count 3 should merge because it stems from same conduct/product | State: Count 3 was based on separate possession of 191.13 g mixture and plea agreement expressly provided Count 3 did not merge | Denied — Smith expressly agreed Count 3 would not merge; sentence jointly recommended and authorized by law |
| Whether entire Guernsey County Prosecutor's Office should be disqualified | Smith: prosecutor hid information and made misstatements (e.g., mischaracterizing basis of possession charge) showing actual prejudice and impropriety | State: misstatements were inadvertent; record shows parties and court knew Count 3 was based on liquid mixture; no actual prejudice | Denied — mere misstatement insufficient; Smith failed to show actual prejudice or conflict warranting disqualification |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (post-conviction relief is a collateral civil attack; pleading/sufficiency standards)
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (res judicata bars post-conviction claims that could be raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata principles in criminal cases)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (res judicata bars claims raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (manifest miscarriage of justice standard)
- State v. Jackson, 64 Ohio St.2d 107 (requirements for post-conviction proceedings and hearings)