State v. Williams

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: CORNELIUS J. O'SULLIVAN, JR, JUDGE
• Citation: State v. Williams, 2022 Ohio 2043, 110941 (Ohio App. Jun 16, 2022)
• Docket Number: 110941
• Decision Date: 16 June 2022
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARRYL W. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

1

2022-Ohio-2043

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARRYL W. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 110941

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

June 16, 2022

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-17-622120-A

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Tasha L. Forchione, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Dean A. Colovas, for appellant.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

CORNELIUS J. O'SULLIVAN, JR, JUDGE

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Darryl Williams ("appellant") appeals from the trial court's September 24, 2021 judgment summarily denying his motion to withdraw his plea and/or for postconviction relief. After a thorough review of the law and facts, we affirm.

Procedural History

{¶ 2} In October 2017, appellant was charged in a multicount indictment with the following crimes:

• three counts of rape, each with one- and three-year firearm specifications, a sexually violent predator specification, a notice of prior conviction, and a repeat violent offender specification;

• one count of gross sexual imposition with one- and three-year firearm specifications, and a sexually violent predator specification;

• one count of kidnapping with one- and three-year firearm specifications, a sexual motivation specification sexually violent predator specification, notice of prior conviction, and repeat violent offender specification;

• one count of aggravated robbery with one- and three-year firearm specifications, notice of prior conviction, and repeat violent offender specification; and

• one count of kidnapping with one- and three-year firearm specifications, notice of prior conviction, and repeat violent offender specification.

{¶ 3} The charges stem from a 1998 rape of a high-school student while she was on her way to school. The victim reported the crime and stated that the suspect either ejaculated or "dripped" semen on to the floor and/or wall at the crime scene. The police swabbed the wall for evidence.

{¶ 4} The case was "cold" until 2017 when an investigator from the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, Anthony Kratsas ("Kratsas"), was assigned to review it. After his review, appellant was indicted on the charges within.

{¶ 5}After being indicted, in December 2017, appellant filed a motion for a DNA expert, which the trial court granted. In January 2018, appellant filed a motion to suppress a DNA swab sample that Kratsas obtained from him alleging that the sample was taken without a warrant or valid consent. Appellant further alleged that the sample was "mishandled, contaminated, and no chain of custody was properly maintained." The state opposed the motion.

{¶ 6} The trial court held a hearing in June 2018 on appellant's suppression motion. At the beginning of the hearing, defense counsel informed the trial court that he had not yet received the results from the DNA testing he requested and, thus, asked the court to reserve ruling on the suppression motion. The hearing went forward with the understanding that the defense would supplement its motion to suppress if new evidence arose as a result of its testing.

{¶ 7} Approximately one week after the hearing, and prior to the court's ruling on appellant's suppression motion, appellant changed his plea and entered a guilty plea to one count of an amended charge of rape (Count 1) with deletion of all the specifications and notice of prior conviction. All of the remaining counts, notices, and specifications were dismissed. Prior to pleading guilty, appellant's counsel stated that appellant was withdrawing his motion to suppress, acknowledging that it was "moot." In June 2018, the trial court sentenced appellant to a ten-year prison term, to be served consecutive to a sentence in another case he was then serving.

{¶ 8} Appellant filed a direct appeal, wherein he challenged the voluntariness of his guilty plea and his sentence. State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107416, 2019-Ohio-1348. This court overruled his assignments of error and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Id. at ¶ 1, 7, 10-11.

{¶ 9} In April 2021, appellant filed the subject motion to withdraw his plea and/or for postconviction relief. The trial court summarily denied the motion.

Factual History: As Adduced from Testimony at Suppression Hearing

{¶ 10} Investigator Kratsas testified that, during his initial review of this case, he discovered that the swabbing retrieved by the police from the wall at the crime scene had never been tested. The evidence was stored in a property room at the Cleveland Division of Police's headquarters. Kratsas requested and received the evidence from the police. Upon receiving the evidence, Kratsas placed it in a secured locker at his office and recorded receipt of it in a logbook.

{¶ 11} Another investigator from the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office, Justin Rotili ("Rotili"), submitted the evidence to the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation ("BCI"). The evidence was contained in one envelope marked "scrapings of stains recovered from the crime scene," and was accompanied with a "Laboratory Evidence Submission" form, which assigned 13-38679 as the BCI case number.

{¶ 12} In February 2017, BCI informed the Cleveland police that a preliminary association was made between the subject specimen and appellant. BCI requested an additional sample from appellant for verification. Shortly thereafter, Kratsas met with appellant in the Cuyahoga County Jail to interview him about this offense and obtain buccal swabs. The interview was recorded; the pertinent portions of it were played at the suppression hearing. Appellant consented to the collection of his DNA and signed a "consent to collect biological DNA analysis" form. Kratsas collected the evidence, placed it in a first envelope which he sealed, placed the first envelope in a second envelope which he taped sealed, placed the evidence in a secured locker at his office, and recorded the evidence in a logbook. The investigator testified that he sealed the envelopes with tape, instead of licking them, so as to not potentially contaminate the evidence.

{¶ 13} In March 2017, Rotili submitted appellant's DNA to BCI. The envelope was marked "Hit Verification Standard - from Darryl Williams" and was accompanied with a "Laboratory Evidence Submission" form with the same BCI case number as the first submission - 13-38679. In a letter dated March 17, 2017, BCI informed the Cleveland police that appellant's DNA was a match to the first sample obtained from the crime scene. BCI provided a chain of custody report for the subject case number which documented the evidence log from September 2013 through March 2017.

Assignments of Error

{¶ 14} Appellant raises the following two assignments of error for our review:

I. The subject matter is not a final appealable order as a result of error on behalf of the trial court by not issuing a finding of facts/conclusions of law setting forth its reasons for denial of Defendant-Appellant's motion for [postconviction] relief/withdrawal of Plea.

II. The trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendant-Appellant's motion for [postconviction] relief/withdrawal of plea for reasons that Defendant-Appellant entered into said plea without knowledge of evidence which had been provided his to his counsel which would have likely led to his exoneration.

Law and Analysis

Final, Appealable Order

{¶ 15} In his first assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court's judgment denying his motion without findings of fact and conclusions of law is not a final, appealable order. He requests that we remand the case to the trial court with an order that it issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.

{¶ 16} Postconviction proceedings are a collateral civil attack on a judgment and are treated as any other civil postjudgment motion. State v. Apanovitch, 107 Ohio App.3d 82, 87, 667 N.E.2d 1041 (8th Dist.1995). Ordinarily, findings of fact and conclusions of law are required when a court dismisses a petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. State ex rel. Brown v. Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton Cty., 23 Ohio St.3d 46, 46-47, 491 N.E.2d 303 (1986). However, the Supreme Court of Ohio has clarified that the failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, when required, is not a jurisdictional impediment to appealing the denial of a postconviction relief petition. State ex rel Penland v. Dinkelacker, 162 Ohio St.3d 59, 2020-Ohio-3774, 164 N.E.3d 336, ¶ 3, overruling State ex rel. Ferrell v. Clark, 13 Ohio St.3d 3, 469 N.E.2d 843 (1984), and State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 438 N.E.2d 910 (1982); see also State ex rel. Howard v. Saffold, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111031, 2022-Ohio-521, ¶ 9, fn. 2; State v. Conner, 2020-Ohio-4310, 158 N.E.3d 162, ¶ 3-4 (8th Dist.).

{¶ 17} Further, findings of fact and conclusions of law are not required when a trial court denies a motion to withdraw a plea. Harwell v. State, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81664, 2002-Ohio-5858, ¶ 4. Moreover, as will be discussed below, findings of fact and conclusions of law were not required in this case because appellant's petition was untimely.

{¶ 18} Thus, the trial court's judgment in this case is a final, appealable order. Appellant's first assignment of error is therefore overruled.

{¶ 19} In his second assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his plea and/or for postconviction relief.

Withdrawal of Plea

{¶ 20} Pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, a trial court can set aside a judgment of conviction after it imposes sentence, and may allow the defendant to withdraw his or her plea, only "'to correct a manifest injustice.'"...