Ninth District Opinions Released on June 24, 2013

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Appellate District released three opinions on June 24, 2013. Two were from Medina County and one was from Lorain County. 

The case from the Lorain County Common Pleas Court  was State v. Malone, 2013-Ohio-2605, a criminal case in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. Mr. Malone cited two assignments of error. The first was that the trial court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea. The second was that his counsel was ineffective in not advising him of the strength of the State's case and in not conducting a proper pre-trial investigation. The Court overruled both assignments of error. Judge Carr concurred in the judgment of the Court only since she would have affirmed on the basis of res judicata. She wrote in her concurring opinion that Mr. Malone could have raised these issues on a direct appeal and that since he didn't, he couldn't raise them on this appeal from the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. 

The two Medina County cases were both criminal cases out of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. In one case the appellate court affirmed the trial court and in the other case the court reversed and remanded. 

The case in which the trial court was affirmed was State v. Sebestyen, 2013-Ohio-2606. Mr. Sebestyen appealed from the trial court's decision overruling his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision under the doctrine of res judicata. The Court noted that Mr. Sebestyen could have raised the issues on a direct appeal. The Court further noted that the fact that Mr. Sebestyen didn't file a direct appeal doesn't stop the doctrine from being applied to his appeal from the decision regarding his motion to withdraw his plea. 

The case in which the trial court was overruled was State v. Labriola, 2013-Ohio-2604. Labriola was convicted after a jury trial of complicity to commit arson. Mr. Labriola raised two assignments of error. The first was that his conviction was not based on sufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. The second assignment of error was that the assistant prosecutor's comments during closing argument were an impermissible comments on Labriola's credibility and the credibility of other witnesses. The Court of Appeals accepted this assignment of error and reversed his conviction. The case was remanded back to the Common Pleas Court for a new trial.