State v. Morris
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 8, 2026
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney; Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting Attоrney and Supervising Attorney; Owen Knapp, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney; and Arwa Elmashae, Legal Intern, for appellee.
Richard L. Morris, pro se.
MARY J. BOYLE, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Richard Morris (“Morris“), pro se, is seeking review of the denial of his third motion to withdraw his guilty рlea. He raises the following assignments of error for review:
The trial court erred when it denied [Morris‘s] motion to vacate guilty plea when new evidence was presented to the court that [Morris] received after he took a plea and was sentenced due to the ineffective assistance of counsel.
Assignment of Error II:
The trial court erred when it claimed it did not have jurisdiction to rule on [Morris‘s] motion to vacate his guilty plea pursuant to
{¶ 2} For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 3} The facts of this case were previously set forth by this court in Morris‘s delayed direct appeal, State v. Morris, 2022-Ohio-1318 (8th Dist.) (“Morris I“):
Aсcording to the state, Morris engaged in sexual conduct with four victims, at least two of whom “consented” to the sexual relationship but were uninformed of Morris‘s having tested positive for HIV. The other two victims were a brother and sister who lived with Morris. Morris was involved in a relationship with the sister but also failed to disclose his HIV status despite engaging in sexual conduct. The brother was a juvenile under his sister‘s care. During the time period in which he was engaging in sexual conduct with the juvenile, Morris attempted to attain custody of the juvenile, although he was already filling a parental-type role.
Id. at ¶ 2. On appeal, Morris challenged his guilty plea, claiming that the trial court erred when it denied his “postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea without a hearing because of his claimed denial of the effective assistance of counsel during and before the change-of-plea hearing.” Id. at ¶ 8. Finding no merit to the appeal, we affirmed his convictions and his 23-year sentence. In doing so, we noted that “Morris‘s attorney engaged in extensive discovery throughout the three-year
{¶ 4} Following Morris I, Morris filed a motion to vacate his guilty plea in February 2024. The State opposed, and the trial court denied the motion in June 2024.1 Also in June 2024, Morris filed a pro se application to reopen his appeal, claiming that “appellate counsel was ineffective for not advancing 16 proposed assignments оf error ranging from ineffective assistance of trial counsel to insufficient evidence to support his convictions.” State v. Morris, 2024-Ohio-6190, ¶ 1 (8th Dist.) (“Morris III“). We denied Morris‘s application, finding that he failed to establish a genuine issue of appellate counsel‘s ineffectiveness.
{¶ 5} Approximately four months later in December 2024, Morris filed a pro se motion to vacate his convictions, which the trial court construed as a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Essentially, Morris аrgued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to provide him with the entire discovery, and if he was aware of the new evidence he may have been found innocent. Morris supported his claim with several documents, including affidavits from two of the victims. In one affidavit, he contends that the victim stated “they lied about the entire thing.” (Morris‘s motion to vacate convictions, Dec. 17, 2024). The State opposed, and the trial court denied Morris‘s motion.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶ 7} In the first assignment of error, Morris challenges the denial of his third postsentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} This court has explained that “[p]ostsentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas are not freely granted because that would allow defendants to withdraw
{¶ 10} We review the denial of a postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. State v. Davis, 2021-Ohio-4015, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Straley, 2019-Ohio-5206, ¶ 15, citing Smith at paragraph two of the syllabus, and State v. Francis, 2004-Ohio-6894, ¶ 32. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises “its judgment, in an unwarranted way, in regard to a matter over which it has discretionary authority.” Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304, ¶ 35.
{¶ 11} Morris argues that his latest motion to withdraw is based on newly discovered evidence, which precludes the application of res judicata. Morris further argues that this evidence was either withheld by trial counsel or trial counsel failed to investigate and obtain this evidence. Consequently, he contends that he demonstrated a manifest injustice because of trial counsel‘s ineffectiveness.
{¶ 12} We note that a “claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is a valid reason to withdraw a guilty plea if it resulted in a manifest injustice.” State v. Spencer, 2010-Ohio-1667, ¶ 18 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Turner, 2007-Ohio-1346
{¶ 13} In Spencer, we noted that this court has “‘allowed an exception to res judicata when a petitioner presents new, competent, relevant and material evidence dehors the record. However, “[e]vidence presented outside the record must meet some threshold standard of cogency * * *.” Equally important, as our court has emphasized, “the evidence dehors the record must not be evidence which was in existence and available for use at the time of trial and which could and should have been submitted at trial if the defendant wished to use it.“‘” (Internal citations omitted.) Id. at ¶ 20, quoting State v. Kenney, 2003-Ohio-2046, ¶ 45 (8th Dist.). “[T]he good faith, credibility and weight of the movant‘s assertions in support of the motion are matters to be resolved by the trial court.” Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, at paragraph two of the syllabus.
{¶ 15} Moreover, Morris‘s challenges to trial counsel‘s effectiveness on the basis of discovery being withheld have been rejected by this court in Morris I and Morris III. In Morris I, we statеd: “[U]pon discussing the issue with the trial court on the record, the trial court repeatedly remarked that Morris‘s attorney undertook extensive discovery review. Tr. 189-198. Morris‘s conclusory statements to the contrary that lack any аnalysis or discussion pertaining to the trial court‘s hearing, consideration, and conclusion on the discovery issue are not sufficient to warrant
{¶ 16} Because Morris‘s exhibits are not newly discovered, res judicata bars his claims. Furthermore, Morris fails to demonstrate that a manifest injustice has occurred, particularly because he was aware of these еxhibits before his guilty plea. This is not the case where “an extraordinary and fundamental flaw in the plea proceeding” occurred. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Morris‘s motion to withdrаw his plea.
{¶ 17} Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 18} In the second assignment of error, Morris contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to vacate his guilty plea on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction. Morris‘s contеntion is not supported by the record. A review of the trial court‘s entry indicates the court “denied” the motion without stating any findings of fact or conclusions of law. It was within the trial court‘s province, however, to do so. This court has made clear that a trial court is not required to provide findings of facts and conclusions of law when denying a
{¶ 20} Thus, the second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 21} Accordingly, judgment is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds therе were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
________________________
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, J., CONCUR