State v. Milanovich, 74-350

Citation42 Ohio St.2d 46,325 N.E.2d 540,71 O.O.2d 26
Decision Date02 April 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74-350,74-350
Parties, 71 O.O.2d 26 The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. MILANOVICH, Appellee.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where a claim raised by a petition for postconviction relief under R.C. 2953.21 is sufficient on its face to raise an issue that petitioner's conviction is void or voidable on constitutional grounds, and the claim is one which depends upon factual allegations that cannot be determined by examination of the files and records of the case, the petition states a substantive ground for relief.

2. Upon a motion by the prosecuting attorney for summary judgment, a petition for postconviction relief shall be dismissed where the pleadings, affidavits, files and other records show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and there is no substantial constitutional issue established.

On January 17, 1972, Nicholas Milanovich, Jr., appellee herein, was arraigned in the Court of Common Pleas of Columbiana County upon an indictment for armed robbery and entered a plea of not guilty. He was represented by appointed counsel, Donald A. Lewis. The next day, defendant appeared with counsel in open court and requested to change his plea from not guilty to guilty. He submitted a written change of plea in which he certified 'that no promises of leniency, or probation, or threats of any kind have been made to me by my counsel, or by any members of the prosecutor's staff, and that my action today is entirely voluntary on my part.' After making inquiries as to defendant's understanding of his change of plea, the court permitted him to enter a plea of guilty. Defendant was sentenced to form 10 to 25 years in the state penitentiary.

On February 29, 1972, defendant's counsel filed a motion to suspend further execution of the sentence, pursuant to the provision of R.C. 2947.061 for 'shock parole.' After a hearing, the motion was denied.

On May 29, 1973, Milanovich filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that his guilty plea had been induced by counsel's promise that 'stock parole' would be obtained if petitioner pleaded guilty. Petitioner claimed that his counsel instructed him that 'if the judge asks you if you have been made any promises you should answer 'no sir' because legally we aren't permitted to do such but we all do it under the table anyway.'

On July 27, 1973, the Court of Common Pleas held a hearing to determine whether petitioner was entitled to a formal evidentiary hearing under R.C. 2953.21 et seq. The prosecuting attorney appeared for the state, and petitioner's court-appointed counsel at the time of the change of plea also appealed. *

The trial judge dismissed the petition, and made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

'1. The court find that the defendant in open court stated that no promises had been made to him that he would get probation, neither by his counsel or any members of the prosecutor's staff.

'2. The court finds that the defendant through his counsel and in open court specifically asked for leave to change his plea from not guilty to guilty and to be immediately sentenced.

'3. Defendant made no request or application for probation to the court.

'4. That the record shows that petitioner's claim that he was assured by his counsel that he would be placed on probation is untrue.'

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing.

This court granted a motion for leave to appeal, and appointed counsel to represent the petitioner before this court.

Joseph J. Baronzzi, Prosecuting Atty., for appellant.

David W. Fais, Columbus, for appellee.

STERN, Justice.

This is a case brought under R.C. 2953.21, Ohio's statutory provision for postconviction determination of constitutional rights. R.C. 2953.21 provides, in part:

'(C) Before granting a hearing the court shall determine whether there are substantive grounds for relief. In making such a determination, the court shall consider, in addition to the petition and supporting affidavits, all the files and records pertaining to the proceedings against the petitioner, including but not limited to the indictment, the court's journal entries, the journalized records of the clerk of court, and the court reporter's transcript. Such court reporter's transcript if ordered and certified by the court shall be taxed as court costs. If the court dismisses the petition it shall make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to such dismissal.

'(D) Within ten days after the docketing of the petition or within such further time as the court may fix for good cause shown, the prosecuting attorney shall respond by demurrer, answer, or motion. Within twenty days from the date the issues are made up either party may move for summary judgment as provided in Section 2311.041 of the Revised Code. A bill of exceptions is not necessary in seeking summary judgment. The right to such judgment must appear on the face of the record.'

Under R.C. 2953.21, an action for post-conviction relief is a civil proceeding, in which the prosecuting attorney represents the state as a party.

R.C. 2953.21(E) provides, in part:

'Unless the petition and files and records of the case show the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall proceed to a prompt hearing on the issues * * *.'

In the instant case, petitioner's claim is that his guilty plea was induced by counsel's promise that 'shock parole' would be granted if petitioner entered a guilty plea.

If this allegation is true, appellee's conviction was arguably voidable. As was said in Machibroda v. United States (1962), 368 U.S. 487, 493, 82 S.Ct. 510, 513, 7 L.Ed.2d 473:

'* * * A guilty plea, if induced by promises or threats which deprive it of the character of a voluntary act, is void. A conviction based upon such a plea is open to collateral attack. See Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275, 61 S.Ct. 574, 85 L.Ed. 830; Waley v. Johnston, 316 U.S. 101, 62 S.Ct. 964, 86 L.Ed. 1302; Shelton v. United States, 356 U.S. 26, 78 S.Ct. 563, 2 L.Ed.2d 579, reversing, 5 Cir., 246 F.2d 571. 'A plea of guilty differs in purpose and effect from a mere admission or an extra-judicial confession; it is itself a conviction. Like a verdict of a jury it is conclusive. More is not required; the court has nothing to do but give judgment and sentence. Out of just consideration for persons accused of crime, courts are careful that a plea of guilty shall not be accepted unless made voluntarily after proper advice and with full understanding of the consequences.' Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223, 47 S.Ct. 582, 583, 71 L.Ed 1009.'

Further, appellee's claim is one which cannot be determined by an examination of the petition or the files and records of the case. The allegation primarily concerns out-of-court conversation between petitioner and his appointed counsel. None of the files or records could ordinarily provide direct evidence of the substance of such conversations.

The trial judge relied upon the transcript of the change of plea hearing to infer that appellee's claim was untrue. certainly, the fact that appellee signed a change-of-plea form, in open c...

To continue reading

Request your trial
467 cases
  • Van Hook v. Anderson, No. C-1-94-269.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 19 Enero 2001
    ...to the Perry rule of res judicata — namely, constitutional claims based on evidence outside the trial record. See State v. Milanovich, 42 Ohio St.2d 46, 325 N.E.2d 540 (1975). Van Hook argues in Ground I that he was unduly prejudiced by the presence of Judge Bettman on his three-judge panel......
  • Cooey v. Anderson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 4 Septiembre 1997
    ...opportunity to meet the burden discussed in Lawson and Coleman. In light of the Ohio Supreme Court's holding in State v. Milanovich, 42 Ohio St.2d 46, 325 N.E.2d 540 (1975), the court finds that it must agree. In Milanovich, the Court considered a post-conviction petition in which the petit......
  • State v. Michael B. Buhrman
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 12 Septiembre 1997
    ... ... claims on summary judgment, without a hearing, when the ... defendant fails to present sufficient evidentiary materials ... containing operative facts in support of his or her claims ... State v. Milanovich (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 46, 71 ... O.O.2d 26, 325 N.E.2d 540; State v. Perry (1967), 10 ... Ohio St.2d 175. One instance where a defendant fails to ... present sufficient evidentiary material is when the defendant ... merely submits his or her own affidavit to contradict ... ...
  • Dennis v. Mitchell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 1 Octubre 1999
    ...from the Perry rule. See State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98, 101 n. 1, 477 N.E.2d 1128, 1131 n. 1 (1985); State v. Milanovich, 42 Ohio St.2d 46, 50, 325 N.E.2d 540, 543 (1975). However, Dennis offers only evidence from the record to support Claims 6 (prosecutorial misconduct), 13, and 17 (imp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT