[Cite as State v. Casey,
2024-Ohio-5284.]
COURT OF APPEALS
GUERNSEY COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
STATE OF OHIO JUDGES:
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
-vsCase No. 24 CA 10
MICHAEL E. CASEY
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 22 CR 53
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 5, 2024
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
LINDSEY DONEHUE-ANGLER MICHAEL E. CASEY
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY PRO SE #A807415
JASON R. FARLEY NOBLE CORR. INSTITUTION
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR 15708 McConnelsville Road
627 Wheeling Avenue Caldwell, Ohio 43724
Cambridge, Ohio 43725
Guernsey County, Case No. 24 CA 10 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Michael Casey, appeals the April 15, 2024 Judgment Entry of the
Guernsey County Common Pleas Court denying his motion to set aside judgment of
conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea to correct manifest
injustice and motion to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts Plaintiff-Appellee is the
State of Ohio.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
{¶2} The Guernsey County Grand Jury indicted the appellant, Michael Casey,
on one count of permitting drug abuse, a violation of R.C. 2925.13(B)(C)(3)(a), a felony
of the fifth degree; one count of possession of cocaine, a violation of R.C.
2925.11(A)(C)(4)(f), a felony of the first degree, and one count of possession of cocaine,
a violation of R.C. 2925.11(A)(C)(4)(d), a felony of the second degree. In a separate
case, his wife, Lisa Casey, was indicted on similar charges arising from the same set of
facts.
{¶3} On August 18, 2022, appellant appeared before the trial court and, in a
negotiated plea, changed his plea from not guilty to guilty of one count of possession of
cocaine, a felony of the second degree. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state
dismissed the count of permitting drug abuse, a felony of the fifth degree and one count
of possession of cocaine, a felony of the first degree. In a separate case, appellant
entered a guilty plea of possession of crack cocaine with a forfeiture specification, a
felony of the fourth degree.
{¶4} On October 21, 2022, appellant returned to the trial court for sentencing.
The trial court sentenced him to an indefinite period of incarceration of six to nine years
Guernsey County, Case No. 24 CA 10 3
with a mandatory minimum of six years. The trial court imposed a sentence of twelve
months on the separate case and ordered the sentence to be served consecutive to the
imposed indefinite sentence.
{¶5} A statement of the facts underlying appellant’s original plea of guilty and
conviction is unnecessary to our disposition of this appeal. The specific facts
surrounding the charges are set forth in appellant’s prior appeal - State v. Casey, 2024-
Ohio-746 (5th Dist.), appeal not allowed, 2024-Ohio-2373. Any facts needed to clarify
the issues addressed in appellant’s assignment of error shall be contained therein.
{¶6} Appellant filed no direct appeal from his convictions and sentences.
Instead, on August 30, 2023, appellant filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief.
{¶7} In that petition, appellant asserted trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
have the crack cocaine found in the toilet bowl independently reweighed as did his wife’s
counsel. According to appellant, if only his trial counsel had insisted on a reweighing of
the crack cocaine, it would have resulted in a charge of possession of cocaine as a felony
of the third degree, not a felony of the second degree. In support, appellant argued that
a copy of the laboratory analysis used in his wife’s case showed the weight of the cocaine
seized by law enforcement as less than 20 grams.
{¶8} The trial court denied appellant’s petition without a hearing and issued
findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A).
{¶9} Appellant filed an appeal alleging two assignments of error:
{¶10} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE
APPELLANT’S OF [SIC] DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT
DISMISSED THE PETITION BELOW BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT SUPPORT,
Guernsey County, Case No. 24 CA 10 4
WHERE THE CLAIM IS SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED AND PROVEN BY THE
EVIDENCE AND PLEADINGS FILED IN APPELLANT’S WIFE’S CASE, AND BOTH
CASES WERE BASED UPON THE SAME FACTS AND EVIDENCE; AND WHERE THE
EVIDENCE AND PLEADINGS FILED IN THE APPELLANT’S WIFE’S CASE SHOW
THAT THE APPELLANT’S CONVICTION AND SENTENCE ARE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
{¶11} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE
APPELLANT’S OF [SIC] DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WHEN THE TRIAL COURT
DISMISSED THE PETITION BELOW BASED UPON INSUFFICIENT SUPPORT,
ALTHOUGH THE CLAIM IS PROVEN BY THE EVIDENCE AND PLEADINGS FILED IN
THE APPELLANT’S WIFE’S CASE BEFORE THE SAME JUDGE; BOTH CASES
WERE BASED UPON THE SAME FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND THE COURT FAILED
TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT’S WIFE’S CASE.”
{¶12} This Court found appellant’s claim speculative at best and affirmed the
decision of the trial court. Id. at ¶ 13. First, this Court found that appellant’s ineffective
assistance of counsel claim was waived by his guilty plea. Id. at ¶ 14. This Court further
held that even if appellant’s claim would be considered, it would be overruled. Id. at ¶
14.
{¶13} Appellant argued that this Court should take judicial notice of his wife’s
separate criminal charges and the test results submitted therein. This Court found that a
trial court cannot take judicial notice of court proceedings in another case even if the
same parties and subject matter are involved. Id. at ¶ 17.
Guernsey County, Case No. 24 CA 10 5
{¶14} Finally, this Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing appellant’s post-conviction petition. Id. at ¶ 19.
{¶15} While appellant’s appeal on the denial of his petition for post-conviction
relief was still pending, on November 23, 2023, appellant repackaged these same
arguments and filed a motion to withdraw his plea based on newly discovered evidence,
set aside his conviction, and take judicial notice of adjudicative facts.1 The state filed a
response and on April 15, 2024, the trial court denied the motion.
{¶16} The trial court found that appellant was seeking to withdraw his plea after
sentencing and did not demonstrate a manifest injustice. The trial court further found
that appellant’s ineffective assistance of counsel allegation was addressed by this Court
in appellant’s first appeal and found speculative at best. The trial court further found that
it could not take judicial notice of court proceedings in another case. Judgment Entry,
April 15, 2024.
{¶17} Appellant now brings this second appeal from the trial court’s judgment
entry of April 15, 2024 arguing one assignment of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶18} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE
APPELLANT’S SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS BY IGNORING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE
SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, AND DENYING HIS POST-SENTENCE CRIMINAL
RULE 32.1 MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND PERMIT THE APPELLANT
1 The trial court did not dismiss the motion for want of jurisdiction because of appellant’s
pending appeal. See State v. Godfrey, 5th Dist. Licking No. 99 CA 95, 2000 WL 329802.
Guernsey County, Case No. 24 CA 10 6
TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA TO CORRECT A MANIFEST INJUSTICE; AND BY
FAILING TO ORDER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO TEST THE EVIDENCE.”
Standard of Review
{¶19} We review appellant’s claims under an abuse of discretion standard. An
abuse of discretion is “the trial court’s failure to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal
decision-making.” State v. Rose, 2024-Ohio-5053, ¶ 19 (11th Dist.) (petition for post-
conviction relief); State v. Wilkes,
2024-Ohio-4666, ¶ 14 (5th Dist.), (motion to withdraw
plea after sentencing). “A motion made pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 is addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial court and the good faith, credibility and weight of the movant’s
assertions in support of the motion are matters to be resolved by that court. State v.
Smith,
49 Ohio St.2d 261361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977).”)
Withdrawal of plea after sentencing requires a manifest injustice
{¶20} Crim.R. 32.1 governs the withdrawal of a guilty or no-contest plea and
states:
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no-contest may be made only
before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after
sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the
defendant to withdraw his or her plea.
{¶21} Because appellant requests to withdraw his plea is made post-sentence,
appellant must demonstrate a manifest injustice.
{¶22} Appellant has the burden of demonstrating a manifest injustice warranting
the withdrawal of his guilty plea. State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977), paragraph
one of the syllabus; State v. Aleshire,
2010-Ohio-2566, ¶ 60 (5th Dist.). Manifest injustice
Guernsey County, Case No. 24 CA 10 7
relates to some fundamental flaw in the proceedings which results in a miscarriage of
justice or is inconsistent with the demands of due process. State v. Williams, 2004-Ohio-
6123, ¶ 5 (10th Dist.). A post-sentence motion to withdraw is allowed only in
extraordinary circumstances.
Smith, supra, at 264. “A manifest injustice comprehends
a fundamental flaw in the path of justice so extraordinary that the defendant could not
have sought redress from the resulting prejudice through any form of application
reasonably available to him.” State v. Wilkes, supra, at ¶ 17 quoting State v. Williams,
2014-Ohio-5727.
{¶23} Appellant claims as manifest injustice the laboratory report his wife’s
counsel obtained for his wife’s case demonstrated a difference in cocaine weight.
Appellant claims that the difference in actual weight of the cocaine when separated from
the toilet water would have been less than 20 grams. Appellant pleaded guilty to Count
Three of the indictment agreeing that the amount of cocaine was equal to or exceeded
20 grams but less than 27 grams.
{¶24} We find that appellant has failed to demonstrate a manifest injustice.
{¶25} The Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Stumpf, 32 Ohio St.3d 95 (1967)
rejected a similar argument. In that case, the defendant sought to withdraw his plea
based on testimony made at a subsequent trial of another defendant, which indicated
the defendant who had pleaded guilty did not commit the shooting. The court rejected
the motion to withdraw a plea finding that a plea of guilty is a complete admission of guilt.
“Based upon appellant’s guilty plea and the evidence adduced at his sentencing hearing,
we cannot say that the panel abused its discretion or that appellant met his burden of
showing that manifest injustice had occurred.”
Id. at 104.
Guernsey County, Case No. 24 CA 10 8
{¶26} In short, appellant’s motion does not demonstrate a manifest injustice. In a
negotiated plea, appellant pleaded guilty to a second-degree felony for possession of
cocaine. In exchange, a first-degree felony and a fifth-degree felony were dismissed by
the state. Nothing in that scenario compels this Court to find a manifest injustice.
Law of the Case bars appellant’s claims.
{¶27} Appellant’s motions raise the same issues as those raised by appellant in
his prior appeal from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Appellant argues
that the laboratory report generated in his wife’s case conflicts with the indictment which
charged him with a second-degree felony of possession of cocaine. Appellant further
claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to have the crack cocaine
independently weighed. Appellant also claims that the trial court should have taken
judicial notice of the weight of the crack cocaine from the laboratory report produced in
his wife’s case.
{¶28} This Court has already ruled on the merits of appellant’s claims in State v.
Casey, 2024-Ohio-746 (5th Dist.). Appellant appealed these same claims to the Ohio
Supreme Court and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction of the case.
State of Ohio v. Michael E. Casey, No. 2024-0477, jurisdiction declined
2024-Ohio-2373.
{¶29} The law of the case doctrine “provides that the decision of a reviewing court
in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent
proceedings in the case at both trial and reviewing levels.” State v. Godfrey, 2023-Ohio-
20, ¶ 29 (5th Dist.) quoting Nolan v. Nolan 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984).
Guernsey County, Case No. 24 CA 10 9
CONCLUSION
{¶30} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s
motion to set aside conviction and permit defendant to withdraw his guilty plea to correct
manifest injustice and motion to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts. Appellant’s sole
assignment of error is overruled.
{¶31} The April 15, 2024, judgment entry of the Guernsey County Common Pleas
Court is affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Delaney, P. J., and
Baldwin, J., concur.
JWW/kt 1104
