State v. Worthington
2015 Ohio 3173
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2007 Worthington was indicted on multiple counts of rape and gross sexual imposition involving two girls under ten; he entered guilty pleas to two rape counts with the victims-under-ten specification and was sentenced to concurrent life terms.
- Before pleading he executed a stipulated polygraph agreement, submitted to a polygraph that the examiner reported showed deceptive responses, and wrote an apology letter referencing sexual contact.
- Worthington did not appeal his 2007 conviction or sentence.
- In September 2014 (over seven years later) he moved to withdraw his guilty plea and alternatively sought postconviction relief, asserting newly discovered evidence: alleged recantations by the victims, a 2013 polygraph analyst’s critique of the 2007 exam, family affidavits, and unauthenticated children’s writings.
- The state submitted affidavits from the polygraph examiner and a county official who interviewed the victims in 2014; the victims denied recanting.
- The trial court denied the Crim.R. 32.1 motion and the postconviction petition without a hearing; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Worthington) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial counsel was ineffective, justifying post-sentence plea withdrawal | Counsel provided effective assistance; plea was knowing and voluntary | Counsel failed to prepare for/polygraph, misadvised re: plea consequences, did little investigation | Court: No deficient performance; plea voluntary; res judicata bars many polygraph claims; no manifest injustice |
| 2. Whether alleged new evidence (victim recantations, family affidavits, writings) warrants withdrawal of plea | New evidence is hearsay/unreliable; victims denied recanting when interviewed | Victims recanted to relatives/counsel; writings and affidavits show innocence | Court: Affidavits unauthenticated/self‑serving; no victim affidavits; recantations viewed with suspicion; no reasonable likelihood withdrawal needed |
| 3. Whether postconviction petition (filed late) should be considered and merits relief | Petition untimely and fails statutory gateway; evidence not clear and convincing | Untimely but excused because recantations discovered later; evidence shows innocence | Court: Timeliness not excused—recantations not credible; Worthington failed R.C. 2953.23(A) clear‑and‑convincing standard; denial affirmed |
| 4. Whether Worthington was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motions | No — no reasonable likelihood of entitlement to relief based on the record | Yes — factual disputes (recantations, polygraph reliability) require a hearing | Court: No hearing required; trial court did not abuse discretion in summary denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance two‑part test)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (definition and burden to show manifest injustice to withdraw plea post‑sentence)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (trial court may discredit affidavits in postconviction proceedings without live testimony; factors to weigh affidavit credibility)
- State v. Lascola, 61 Ohio App.3d 228 (defendant who agrees to polygraph assumes risk; decision to take test is within defendant's control)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (a guilty plea is an admission of the substantive offense and carries a presumption the defendant admitted guilt)