State v. WrightState v. Wright
DONOVAN, P.J.
{¶ 1} This matter is before the Court on the pro se Notices of Appeal of Dwaine Wright, filed March 19, 2009, in case no. CA 23330, April 28, 2009, in case nos. CA 23403 and CA 23404; and July 1, 2009, in case no. CA 23521.
{¶ 2} Case No. CA 23330 includes two cases. In the first case, no. 1977-CR-1006,
{¶ 3} On November 25, 2008, Wright filed pro se Petitions “for Writ of Coram Nobis or an Alternative Remedy,” in case nos. 1977-CR-1006 and 1978-CR-840. According to Wright, he is mentally incompetent, his pleas were not made knowingly and voluntarily, and his trial counsel was ineffective. Attached to the Petitions are the following unauthenticated documents: 1) Psychological Evaluation Report, prepared by Tyrone Payne, PH.D., and dated December 21, 1999; 2) Psychological Evaluation Report, prepared by Mary Ann Jones, PH.D., and dated February 20, 2003; 3) a Medical Advice Request, signed by Bruce J. Goldsmith, Ph.D. and dated April 3, 2003, which notes that Wright alleges, “I hear things,” and “people make fun of me,” and states in part, “Please advise on severity of clmt‘s mental allegations.” ;4) an Ohio Bureau of Disability Determination Authorization for Release of Information, dated September 5, 1999, authorizing Dunbar High School to release Wright‘s records for the adjudication of a social security and/or supplemental security income disability claim; 5) a Mental Residual Function Capacity Assessment, dated January 24, 2000; 6) a Psychiatric Review Technique, dated January
{¶ 4} On February 12, 2009, the trial court issued a decision overruling Wright‘s “Writs“. The trial court characterized the writs alternatively as a petition for post-conviction relief and/or a motion to withdraw guilty plea. The court determined, pursuant to
{¶ 5} While the appeal was pending, Wright filed petitions for post-conviction relief in case nos. 1977-CR-1006 and 1978-CR-840, which the trial court denied on April 10, 2009. Wright appealed, in case nos. CA 23403 and CA 23404. Wright also filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas in case no. 1977 CR 1006, which the trial court overruled on June 19, 2009. Wright appealed, in case no. CA 23521.
{¶ 6} We consolidated the above appeals, and our resolution of the issues raised in Case
{¶ 7} “As a preliminary matter, we conclude that the trial court acted reasonably in treating Wright‘s Petitions for a Writ of Coram Nobis as a petition for post-conviction relief or, in the alternative, a motion to 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 advance 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 occurred, the trial court reasonably construed his petition, in the alternative, as a motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to
{¶ 8} Herein, Wright repeats the arguments he made in the trial court, namely that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, that he did not understand his plea, and that his plea was not knowingly and intelligently made.
{¶ 9} Wright‘s petition for post-conviction relief clearly was not filed within the time limitation set forth in
{¶ 10} Wright has failed to demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from raising these facts 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 pleas, that the pleas were taken in violation of
{¶ 12} “Crim.R. 32.1 states: “A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.” The burden of establishing the existence of a manifest injustice is on the party seeking to withdraw the plea. State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264.
{¶ 13} “Although
{¶ 14} The trial court overruled the motion to withdraw due to the length of Wright‘s unreasonable delay. We further note, a transcript of Wright‘s plea in case no. 1978 CR 840 is not before us, and we must presume the regularity of the proceedings below in the absence of a transcript and affirm. Shirley v. Kruse, Greene App. No. 2006-CA-12, 2007-Ohio-193.
The transcript of Wright‘s plea, in case no. 1977-CR-1006, is before us, and it undermines his claims of manifest injustice. The transcript reveals a complete and thorough
{¶ 15} For the foregoing reasons, Wright‘s “Issues Presented” in Case No. 23330 are overruled.
{¶ 16} As we mentioned above, our resolution of the issues in Case No. 23330 also disposes of the issues raised in Case Nos. 23521, and 23403/23404 and 23341. The judgments in all four cases will be affirmed.
. . . . . . . . . .
GRADY, J. and RINGLAND, J., concur.
(Hon. Robert P. Ringland, Twelfth District Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio).
Copies mailed to:
Carley J. Ingram
Dwaine Wright
Hon. Mary L. Wiseman