State v. Stevens
2019 Ohio 2808
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Cory J. Stevens pleaded guilty to one count of rape on March 25, 2013 and was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after ten years; the April 17, 2013 sentencing entry initially stated the ten years was "not a mandatory term."
- Stevens did not pursue a direct appeal from the plea and sentence.
- Stevens filed multiple motions to withdraw his guilty plea. While his first motion was pending, the trial court issued a June 4, 2013 nunc pro tunc entry correcting the sentencing entry to state the ten years prior to parole eligibility was mandatory; the trial court denied the first motion and a related motion to vacate.
- Stevens filed successive motions (2016, 2018) arguing the nunc pro tunc entry improperly changed his sentence, that he was not advised at plea/sentencing that the ten-year parole-eligibility term was mandatory, and that counsel was ineffective; the trial court denied the 2018 motion on jurisdictional/res judicata grounds and on the merits.
- The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding res judicata barred the successive collateral attack and, in any event, the alleged failure to inform Stevens that the term was mandatory did not render the sentence void.
Issues
| Issue | Stevens' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Stevens’ motion to withdraw his plea | The plea was not knowing/voluntary because the court failed to inform him his ten-year parole-eligibility period was mandatory | The court’s prior rulings and final judgment bar successive collateral attack; record supports plea and nunc pro tunc as clerical correction | Denial affirmed; res judicata bars the successive motion and the alleged omission does not void the sentence |
| Whether a trial court's failure to advise a defendant that a prison term is mandatory renders the sentence void | Stevens: omission made plea/sentence invalid and thus not subject to res judicata | State: statutory scheme and caselaw show such omission does not void sentence and only requires remand for notification if appropriate | Held: omission does not render sentence void; res judicata applies to successive motions |
| Whether the nunc pro tunc entry improperly altered Stevens’ sentence without his presence | Stevens: nunc pro tunc materially changed sentence and resentencing without presence was improper | State: nunc pro tunc corrected a clerical error and did not alter the substantive sentence | Held: record did not show the nunc pro tunc did more than correct a clerical error; no relief granted |
| Whether res judicata barred Stevens’ successive motions to withdraw plea | Stevens: res judicata should not apply where plea/sentence was invalid | State: issues were raised or could have been raised earlier; prior final judgment bars successive claims | Held: res judicata applies; court properly declined to consider successive motion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2010) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (a sentence is not void solely because the court omitted certain notifications required by statute)
- State v. Ware, 141 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 2014) (the use of the word "mandatory" is not determinative when the term is mandatory by operation of law)