State v. Karl Wright
| Decision Date | 05 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | 01 CA 80,02-LW-4694 |
| Citation | 2002 Ohio 6096 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. KARL WRIGHT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT CASE |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County Ohio Case No. 80 CR 505
Hon Cheryl L. Waite, Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich, Hon. Mary DeGenaro
For Plaintiff-Appellee: Atty. Paul J. Gains, Mahoning County Prosecutor, Atty. Janice T. O'Halloran, Assistant County Prosecutor, Mahoning County Courthouse, 120 Market Street Youngstown, Ohio 44503
For Defendant-Appellant: Karl Wright, Pro Se, #159-502, 1800 S. Avon Belden Road, Grafton, Ohio 44044
In this appeal Karl Wright ("Appellant") challenges a decision by the court of common pleas granting the State of Ohio's ("Appellee") motion to dismiss the matter based on the pleadings. In his complaint, Appellant sought declaratory judgment, specific performance, an evidentiary hearing and leave to withdraw his twenty-year-old guilty plea.
Appellant's pro se brief alleges eight assignments of error, all basically contesting the decision of the Ohio Adult Parole Board ("APA Board") to categorize him at a level 13 under the Adult Parole Authority's guidelines, instead of a level 11. According to Appellant, his sentence has been improperly extended because of the APA Board's higher assessment.
Whether or not it is possible that Appellant's challenge to the APA Board's decision, which realistically extended his prison term by several years has any merit, this Court has no choice but to affirm the trial court's dismissal of Appellant's complaint because Appellant failed to bring into his action the proper party in accordance with R.C. §2721.12. Further review of Appellant's additional claims and the record on which they are based reveal that they are either wholly lacking in merit or barred as res judicata.
On June 25, 1980, Appellant was indicted on aggravated murder and aggravated robbery charges in connection with the shooting death of Edward Ellis, a gas station attendant at the Star Service Station in Youngstown. The shooting occurred on April 19, 1980, during a botched attempt to rob the service station. After the shooting Appellant promptly surrendered to police and signed a written statement wherein he confessed his involvement in the crime. Appellant later sought to suppress various statements he made to police in the wake of the shooting alleging that they were the product of police coercion and he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time. The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
On August 18, 1980, following plea negotiations, Appellee dismissed the aggravated robbery count and amended the aggravated murder charge under R.C. §2903.01, by reducing it simply to murder as provided under R.C. §2903.02. Appellant entered a guilty plea to the reduced charge and the trial court imposed a sentence of fifteen years to life imprisonment.
Appellant subsequently appealed his conviction to this Court alleging that the trial court erred when it failed to admonish him prior to accepting his guilty plea that he would be waiving his right to appeal the trial court's decision denying his motion to suppress. Alternatively, Appellant complained that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to fully advise him of the consequences of his plea. Concluding that there was no merit to Appellant's arguments, this Court affirmed his conviction and sentence in State v. Wright (April 9, 1981), 7th Dist. No. 80 C.A. 102.
Appellant filed a petition for post conviction relief seeking to vacate his conviction and guilty plea on grounds similar to those he raised in his direct appeal. In an order entered on November 30, 1983, the trial court dismissed the petition. On July 23, 1996, Appellant filed another petition for post-conviction relief, this one styled as a Motion for Termination of Imprisonment or Application to Order Suspension to Further Execution of Sentence, challenging both the quality of the legal representation that he received in the proceedings that led to his guilty plea and the actions of the APA Board taken since the time he entered that plea. On February 7, 1997, the court of common pleas dismissed that petition as well.
On August 16, 2000, the APA Board issued a decision that placed Appellant in an offense category of 13. With a criminal history/risk score of two, the APA Board's decision resulted in a parole guideline range of 330 months to life. . With adjusted credit for what the APA Board characterized as "outstanding program achievement," the APA Board recommended Appellant for release sometime in June of 2004.
Based on the decision to place him in a higher offense category, Appellant filed a pleading in the court of common pleas entitled "Motion for Declaratory Judgment and/or Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing and/or Motion to Withdraw Plea per Crim. R. 32.1 and/or Specific Performance." This filing again challenged the circumstances surrounding his 1980 guilty plea and the action undertaken by the APA Board in the intervening years that, according to Appellant, resulted in an extension of his prison term to a period much longer than anticipated at the time he agreed to enter his guilty plea.
On April 4, 2001, the trial court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6). The court also denied Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea as unjustifiable under Crim.R. 32.1. (Judgment Entry, April 4, 2001, Case No. 80 CR 505). Appellant filed a notice of appeal from that order on April 24, 2001.
In his first assignment of error Appellant complains as follows:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DID NOT ORDER 'SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE' OF THE PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT IN RE '10 YEARS', SIGNED CONTRACT, FOR PAROLE ELIGIBILITY, '10 YEAR MINIMUM MUST BE SERVED', WHEN PLACING APPELLANT IN A POST-1998 GUIDELINE CATEGORY, WHERE APPELLANT MUST SERVE '27½ YEARS TO LIFE', FOR CATEGORY '13', AGG MURDER, RATHER THAN 'CATEGORY 11', FOR '210-270', 'MURDER' CATEGORY, VIOLATING APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER THE 14th AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AND SECTION TEN, ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF OHIO."
As Appellant is acting pro se, we will attempt to decipher from his confusing and somewhat inarticulate filing a cognizable argument. The gist of Appellant's first argument is that when the APA Board placed him in a guideline category of 13 for what it characterized as the offense of "aggravated murder," the APA Board violated the terms of his original plea agreement. The record indicates that although Appellant was initially charged with aggravated robbery and aggravated murder, Appellee dismissed both of those counts when Appellant entered his guilty plea to the crime of murder. Thus, Appellant argues that given the terms of his agreement, the APA Board should have placed him at a level 11, the level designated by the guidelines for the offense of murder.
The pleading Appellant filed in the trial court essentially requested an order directing the APA Board to comply with the terms of the plea bargain Appellant entered into more than twenty years ago. The trial court granted Appellee's motion to dismiss Appellant's complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
This Court subjects dismissals under Civ.R. 12(b)(6) to de novo review. Witcher v. Fairlawn (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 214, 216, 680 N.E.2d 799. Civ.R. 12(b)(6). Accordingly, this Court presumes that all factual allegations set forth in the complaint are true and will draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190, 192, 532 N.E.2d 753. The pleading threshold for complaints is fairly low. As a practical matter, a complaint merely needs to provide reasonable notice of the claim. State ex rel. Edwards v. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Education (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 106, 109, 674 N.E.2d 799.
Dismissal is warranted only where it appears, "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Tucker v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 8th Dist. No. 80134, 2002-Ohio-1601; citing, State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 580, 581, 669 N.E.2d 835. Under R.C. §2967.03, the APA Board's decision with respect to parole determinations is discretionary. Perotti v. Ishee (Oct. 29, 2001), 7th Dist. No. 01 CA 88. As a consequence, a prisoner has no constitutional right to conditional release or parole before he completes a validly imposed sentence. State ex rel. Hattie v. Goldhardt (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 123, 630 N.E.2d 696.
In placing Appellant at a guideline level 13, the APA Board found as follows:
(Appellant's Brf. Appendix Ex. D at p. 1).
The APA Board's decision explicitly takes note of the fact that Appellant was originally indicted on charges of aggravated robbery and aggravated murder. The decision further reflects that the APA Board considered the facts underlying the dismissed charges before concluding that Appellant was properly categorized as a level 13 under the guidelines. Appellant complains that in so doing, the APA Board violated his agreement with Appellee.
Appellan...
To continue reading
Request your trial