2011 Ohio 6248
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Westfall pleaded guilty in 2004 to two counts of rape and one count of gross sexual imposition; sentence included concurrent rape terms and a consecutive GSI term.
- In 2004, a sexual classification hearing occurred; Westfall moved to withdraw guilty pleas, court denied, and denial was affirmed on appeal.
- In 2010, Westfall moved for resentencing for post-release-control issues and also moved to withdraw his guilty pleas; trial court denied withdrawal, and resentenced him.
- Westfall argued sentence was void and that denial of withdrawal should be void as res judicata; he appealed.
- Supreme Court of Ohio later issued Fischer governing post-release-control voidness; only the post-release-control portion is void, not the entire sentence.
- This court held that res judicata applies to merits other than void post-release-control portion, affirmed in part and vacated in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the plea withdrawal properly denied under Fischer? | Westfall | Westfall | Denied; Fischer limited void portion to post-release control |
| Did res judicata bar merits of withdrawal and plea validity? | Westfall | State | Applied; merits preserved except void post-release control |
| Did trial counsels’ effectiveness affect the withdrawal/resentencing rulings? | Westfall | State | No reversible ineffective assistance; |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (only post-release control portion can be void if misimposed)
- State v. Molnar, 2011-Ohio-3799 (9th Dist. 2011) (jurisdictional questions and res judicata implications)
- State v. Woods, 2011-Ohio-562 (9th Dist. 2011) (vacatur of resentencing when post-release control corrected)