State v. Taylor
2015 Ohio 3510
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Desmond L. Taylor pleaded guilty on July 11, 2005 to murder and multiple felonious-assault counts in two Montgomery County cases and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms; he did not appeal those convictions.
- In 2006 Taylor moved pro se to withdraw his murder plea alleging ineffective assistance and equal-protection issues; the trial court denied the motion and this Court affirmed in 2008.
- In December 2013 Taylor filed pro se motions to withdraw his guilty pleas in both cases, arguing the court failed to ensure he understood the charges and failed to advise him of mandatory post-release control (PRC), rendering his sentences void.
- The trial court reviewed the July 11, 2005 plea colloquy, found Taylor had been informed of the nature of the charges, but concluded the court had misstated PRC for the felonious-assault convictions (imposing five years instead of the mandatory three) and had failed to advise PRC during the plea.
- Because Taylor had already served the prison terms on the felonious-assault convictions, the trial court held it could not alter those sentences but entered nunc pro tunc orders vacating the portion of the judgments imposing PRC on the felonious-assault counts.
- Taylor appealed pro se from the trial court’s June 2, 2014 decision denying withdrawal of pleas; this Court found he failed to demonstrate manifest injustice and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was involuntary because court failed to ensure Taylor understood charges | State: Plea colloquy shows court and prosecutor repeatedly explained nature of charges | Taylor: Court did not ascertain he understood the nature of charges before pleading | Court: Record shows Taylor was properly informed; plea not involuntary |
| Whether failure to advise of mandatory post-release control renders sentence void and requires withdrawal of pleas or resentencing | State: Only the PRC portion was void; remedy is to amend judgment to vacate PRC since prison term already served | Taylor: Void sentence (due to unauthorized PRC) requires vacation/resentencing and allows withdrawal of plea; comparable to Long and other cases | Court: PRC imposition was erroneous; nunc pro tunc amendment vacating PRC was appropriate; that does not show manifest injustice warranting plea withdrawal |
| Whether Taylor showed manifest injustice to justify post-sentence withdrawal under Crim.R. 32.1 | State: No manifest injustice; appropriate remedy was correction of PRC portion | Taylor: Void sentence is void regardless of time served and warrants withdrawal | Court: Applying abuse-of-discretion standard, Taylor failed to meet burden to show manifest injustice; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (Ohio 1977) (post-sentence withdrawal of guilty plea permitted only in extraordinary cases; movant must show manifest injustice)
- Xie v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (trial court assesses good faith, credibility, and weight of a Crim.R. 32.1 motion; appellate review is abuse of discretion)
- Barnett v. State, 73 Ohio St.3d 244 (Ohio 1995) (abuse-of-discretion standard for review of plea-withdrawal rulings)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2010) (when court fails to include statutorily mandated postrelease control, that portion of the sentence is void and must be set aside)
- State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (Ohio 2013) (trial court lacks authority to resentence a defendant after the sentence has been served for the sole purpose of adding postrelease control)