State v. Dalton
153 Ohio App.3d 286, 793 N.E.2d 509, 2003 Ohio 3813 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Ineffective assistance of counsel, demonstrated by an attorney's fundamental misunderstanding of the factual basis of the charges and the potential defenses arising from those facts, constitutes manifest injustice sufficient to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea post-sentence if there is a reasonable probability the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but for the counsel's errors.
Facts:
- Brian J. Dalton, while on probation for a prior conviction, was arrested for violating the terms of his probation.
- Following his arrest, Dalton's mother entered his apartment, found items that concerned her including a personal, handwritten journal, and contacted his probation officer, Scott Merrick.
- Merrick met Dalton's mother at the apartment and took possession of the journal.
- Merrick read the journal, which contained Dalton's private, written fantasies detailing the violent torture and rape of fictitious minor children.
- Merrick turned the journal over to a detective with the Columbus Police Sexual Abuse Squad.
- Dalton was subsequently indicted on two counts of pandering obscenity involving a minor, with both charges based solely on the contents of his personal journal.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian J. Dalton was indicted in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on two counts of pandering obscenity (case No. 01CR-02-1159).
- On the advice of his attorney, Dalton entered a guilty plea to one count, and the trial court sentenced him to seven years in prison.
- Dalton filed a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing the underlying statute was unconstitutional as applied to him, which the trial court denied.
- Represented by new counsel, Dalton filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing his original trial counsel was ineffective. The trial court held a hearing and again denied the motion.
- Dalton appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to withdraw his plea to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial counsel's fundamental misunderstanding of the factual basis for criminal charges, which prevents them from adequately advising a defendant of potential constitutional and statutory defenses, constitute ineffective assistance of counsel sufficient to permit the post-sentence withdrawal of a guilty plea?
Opinions:
Majority - Klatt, J.
Yes. A trial counsel's fundamental misunderstanding of the factual basis for the charges constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel sufficient to permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel after a guilty plea, a defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty. Here, counsel's performance was deficient because she mistakenly believed that one of the charges against Dalton was based on a letter describing the molestation of a real child, when in fact both charges were based solely on Dalton's purely fictional journal. This misunderstanding was critical because the U.S. Supreme Court, in cases like Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, has distinguished between prohibiting pornography involving real children (which is permissible to protect victims) and prohibiting purely fictitious or 'virtual' child pornography, which 'records no crime and creates no victims.' Because of her factual error, counsel could not adequately advise Dalton of this substantial constitutional defense. The court found a reasonable probability that Dalton would not have pleaded guilty had he been properly advised of his viable constitutional and statutory defenses, thus satisfying the prejudice prong of the test.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high standard required for a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent guilty plea, emphasizing that such a plea cannot be based on advice from counsel who misunderstands the fundamental facts of the case. It highlights the critical legal distinction between obscenity involving actual children and purely fictitious material, a distinction that can be the basis for a viable constitutional defense. The ruling establishes that an attorney's failure to grasp the factual predicate of a charge, thereby overlooking a significant defense, is a clear instance of deficient performance under the Strickland standard. This case will serve as precedent for defendants seeking to withdraw guilty pleas by showing that their counsel's factual errors led to flawed legal advice that directly influenced their decision to plead.
