State v. Triplett
2012 Ohio 4529
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Triplett pleaded guilty in 2010 to aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary.
- On appeal, this Court invalidated only the postrelease-control portion of the sentence; the remainder remained valid.
- We remanded to the trial court for proper imposition of postrelease control, not for withdraw of pleas.
- On remand, Triplett moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, arguing the court failed to properly explain postrelease control.
- The trial court denied the motion, citing Fischer and res judicata; postrelease-control notices were later provided.
- This appeal concerns whether the motion to withdraw was permissible and whether res judicata barred relief and whether the sentence remained valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Triplett’s motion to withdraw was pre- or post-sentence | Triplett contends the motion should be treated as a pre-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion. | Triplett argues the court should analyze under pre-sentence standards due to voidness of the sentence. | Motion treated as post-sentence; jurisdiction and res judicata issues foreclose relief. |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion on remand | Triplett asserts remand allowed review of the plea withdrawal. | Court lacked remand authority for withdrawal review; remand was for postrelease control only. | Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion on remand. |
| Whether res judicata bars Triplett’s argument | Triplett could have raised plea-withdrawal issue on direct appeal. | Res judicata bars relitigation of issues already adjudicated or raisable on direct appeal. | Res judicata bars the argument. |
| What law governs voidness of the sentence for improper postrelease-control imposition | Triplett relies on Boswell to argue entire sentence void. | Fischer limits voidness to the postrelease-control portion; not the whole sentence. | Under Fischer/Davis, only the postrelease-control portion is void; the rest stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boswell, 121 Ohio St.3d 575 (2009-Ohio-1577) (pre-sentence/withdrawal standard; voidness analysis)
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010-Ohio-6238) (postrelease-control misimposition limits voidness to portion of sentence)
- State v. Davis, 4th Dist. No. 10CA9, 2011-Ohio-6776 (2011-Ohio-6776) (applies post-Fischer framework; distinguishes common-law vs. statutory timing)
- State v. Triplett, 4th Dist. No. 11CA3, 2011-Ohio-5431 (2011-Ohio-5431) (prior remand guidance and sentencing corrections (Triplett II))
- State v. Blevins, 4th Dist. No. 11CA3431, 2012-Ohio-573 (2012-Ohio-573) (remand and lack of jurisdiction to consider post-appeal motions)
- State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (Crim.R. 32.1 jurisdiction and related principles)