State v. WrightState v. Wright
Rendered on the 2nd day of April, 2010.
CARLEY J. INGRAM, Atty. Reg. No. 0020084, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 301 W. Third Street, 5th Floor, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
DWAINE WRIGHT, #43808-061, U.S.P. Hazelton, P. O. Box 2000, Bruceton Mills, WV 26525 Defendant-Appellant
FROELICH, J.
{¶ 1} Dwaine Wright appeals, pro se, from three judgments of the Montgomery County
{¶ 2} In July 1992, Wright was indicted for aggravated burglary. In September 1992, Wright’s counsel filed a motion seeking a competency determination. No specific findings on the issue of competency are contained in the record, but the matter proceeded and, in January 1993, Wright pled guilty to the lesser offense of burglary. He was sentenced to prison for eighteen months. Wright did not appeal from his conviction, and he served the entire sentence.
{¶ 3} On January 16, 2009, Wright filed a “Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis or an Ohio State Alternative Remedy,” arguing that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel when he entered his plea, that he was not аdvised of his rights, and that he did not understand his plea. The trial court stated that it was “unfamiliar with the nature of the petition” filed by Wright but, after some research, interpreted the petition as a claim that the trial court had erred in its earlier proceedings. Thus, the trial court concluded that the petition “could more properly be characterized as a petition for post-conviction relief or, alternatively, a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.” After a discussion of both theories of relief, the trial court denied the petition. Specifically, the trial court concluded that the petition for post-conviction relief was untimely pursuant to
{¶ 4} Wright filed a nоtice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of his petition (Case No. 23301), raising several arguments. After he appealed from the denial of his petition, he filed in the
{¶ 5} As a preliminary matter, we conclude that the trial court acted reasonably in treating Wright’s Petition for a Writ of Coram Nobis as a petition for post-conviction relief or, in the alternative, a motion tо withdraw his guilty plea. The phrase “coram nobis” is “obsolescent if not obsolete in most jurisdictions.” Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (Oxford University Press 1987) 155. It is “the name of a writ of error directed to a court for review of its own judgments and predicated on alleged errors of fact.” Id. The purpose behind Ohio’s post-conviction relief statutes is similar; they “permit trial courts to consider factual information that may come to light after a defendant’s trial, [but] not *** to аdvance new legal theories using the same underlying facts.” State v. Williamitis, Montgomery App. No. 21321, 2006-Ohio-2904, at ¶18. Thus, the trial court acted reasonably in construing Wright’s petition as a petition for post-conviction relief. Further, because Wright alleged that a “manifest injustice” had oсcurred, the trial court reasonably construed his petition, in the alternative, as a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to
{¶ 6} On appeal, Wright reiterates the arguments he made in the trial court, namely that he
{¶ 7} Wright’s petition for post-conviction relief clearly was not filed within the 180-day time limitation set forth in
{¶ 8} Wright’s petition was supported by his own affidаvit, in which he asserted that he was advised to plea guilty; that his IQ at the time of the plea was under 68; that he was “not capable of submitting a knowing, intelligent, or voluntary plea due to his incompetence;” that he “blindly followed” the advice of defense counsel because he did not understand the charge or the proceedings; that he “does not recall” defense counsel or the court “advising [him] of the facts in relation of the crime, or, the nature of the matter” before he pled guilty and the court accepted his plea; and that he had been unable to gain access to the plea colloquy and sentencing transcripts. Wright did not submit any other documentation of his claims with the initial petition. The trial court concluded that Wright had “not alleged any facts in the Petition or his Affidavit which would support an untimely petition” for post-conviction relief.
{¶ 10} Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that there wеre irregularities in the trial court proceedings regarding Wright’s competence or his plea, he has failed to demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from raising these issues in a timely manner. Accordingly, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the substance of his argument.
{¶ 11} Wright also contends that the trial court violated his rights by accepting his plea, that the plea was taken in violation of
{¶ 12}
{¶ 13} “Although
{¶ 14} In ruling on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the trial court noted that Wright’s defense counsel had since died, the judge who accepted the plea had retired, the court reporter who had possessed the notes of the proceedings had left the court and retired, that no stenоgraphic record of the plea procedure remained, and that no appellate record had been created because there was no appeal. The court concluded that Wright could not bе permitted to “benefit from his unexplained delay in pursuing the relief requested in the Petition, when the State could not contradict any testimony that he might offer.” Because of the unreasonable length of the delay, the trial court ovеrruled the motion to withdraw the plea.
{¶ 15} Notwithstanding this finding, the court went on to address the merits of Wright’s argument for withdrawing the plea. With respect to Wright’s competency, the trial court found that there was no evidence to overcome the presumption that Wright was competent to stand trial or to enter a plea. The court noted that trial counsel did request that the court inquire into Wright’s
{¶ 16} The trial court further concluded that Wright had failed to establish that trial сounsel was ineffective with respect to his plea or his competence; Wright failed to establish that counsel’s performance was deficient or that, but for any of counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different.
{¶ 17} We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Wright failed to demonstrate a manifest injustice or extraordinary circumstances that warranted the withdrawal of his plea more than sixteen years after it was enterеd.
{¶ 18} Wright’s “Issues Presented” in Case No. 23301 are overruled.
{¶ 19} As we mentioned above, our resolution of the issues in Case No. 23301 also disposes of the issues raised in Case Nos. 23462 and 23597. The judgments in all three cases will be affirmed.
DONOVAN, P.J. and BROGAN, J., concur.
Carley J. Ingram
Dwaine Wright
Hon. Mary Katherine Huffman
Case Name: State of Ohio v. Dwaine Wright
Case No.: Montgomery App. Nos. 23301, 23462, 23597
Panel: Donovan, Brogan, Froelich
Author: Jeffrey E. Froelich