2015 Ohio 92
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Zachary D. Thompson pled guilty (Dec. 1, 2009) to two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide for a head-on collision that killed two people.
- Trial court sentenced Thompson (Jan. 27, 2010) to consecutive five-year terms (first two years mandatory on each count), ordered $11,466.29 restitution/costs, and imposed a lifetime license suspension.
- This court previously affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal.
- Thompson filed a post‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas (May 28, 2013), arguing newly discovered evidence regarding unintended acceleration and alleging ineffective assistance by counsel in earlier post‑conviction efforts.
- The trial court denied the motion (Mar. 14, 2014). Thompson appealed, claiming the denial was error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thompson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post‑sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw plea should be granted to correct manifest injustice | Denial proper; Thompson's claims are barred or meritless and do not demonstrate manifest injustice | Trial counsel was ineffective in prior proceedings and newly discovered evidence (unintended acceleration) justifies withdrawal | Court: Denial affirmed — claims barred by res judicata and no manifest injustice shown |
| Whether res judicata bars repeated Crim.R. 32.1 claims | Successive motions raising issues that were or could have been raised earlier are barred | Prior proceedings failed to resolve the issues on the merits or counsel was ineffective, so res judicata should not bar | Court: Res judicata applies; Thompson previously raised unintended acceleration and related arguments, so they are barred |
| Whether ineffective assistance of prior post‑conviction counsel rises to Strickland prejudice to permit plea withdrawal | Counsel’s choices (not pursuing unintended acceleration) were reasonable given facts (intoxication/left of center caused crash) | Counsel was incompetent and that incompetence prevented relief | Court: Trial counsel presumed competent; strategic choices here not shown to be objectively unreasonable; Thompson fails Strickland test |
| Whether Thompson met the very high ‘‘manifest injustice’’ standard for post‑sentence withdrawal | Manifest injustice standard not met; no extraordinary showing presented | The combination of new evidence and counsel errors establishes manifest injustice | Court: Standard is extremely high; Thompson did not meet it |
Key Cases Cited
- Caraballo v. Ohio, 17 Ohio St.3d 66 (1985) (abuse of discretion standard for post‑plea withdrawal motions)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (standard for finding abuse of discretion)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (motions to withdraw pleas addressed to trial court discretion; movant bears burden)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (refinement of Strickland analysis in Ohio)
- State v. Hamblin, 37 Ohio St.3d 153 (1988) (attorney presumed competent)