State v. Abercrombie, 2019 Ohio 4786

James Abercrombie was indicted on multiple counts (including gross sexual imposition, sexual battery, rape, kidnapping, endangering children) arising from years of sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s two daughters. Several counts included sexually violent predator specifications.
On January 9, 2019, Abercrombie pleaded guilty to several amended counts (gross sexual imposition, rape, and endangering children); the state removed sexually violent predator specifications and dismissed remaining charges in exchange.
At the January 14, 2019 sentencing hearing, both victims delivered impact statements describing years of abuse; Abercrombie then expressed that he wanted to withdraw his plea and “take it to the box” (i.e., go to trial).
The court declined to allow withdrawal at sentencing, found Abercrombie had knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty after a full Crim.R. 11 colloquy, and imposed an aggregate 20-year prison term.
Abercrombie filed a presentence motion to withdraw his plea arguing the court failed to give a full hearing and properly consider his request; the trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Abercrombie’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea	Trial court properly denied the motion; defendant failed to make a prima facie showing and plea was voluntary after Crim.R. 11 compliance	Court did not give a full hearing and did not adequately consider his request; he did not understand his rights	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed — defendant’s late change of heart insufficient
Whether Abercrombie’s plea was knowing and voluntary under Crim.R. 11	Plea was knowing/voluntary; court conducted full Crim.R. 11 colloquy and defendant acknowledged understanding rights	Defendant claims court never adequately explained rights and he misunderstood them	Record shows full advisement and repeated acknowledgments; presumption of voluntariness unrebutted
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the withdrawal motion	No full evidentiary hearing necessary absent prima facie factual showing; scope is discretionary	Requested a full hearing to contest voluntariness	Brief on-the-record inquiry was adequate given lack of evidentiary support for withdrawal; court acted within discretion

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (presentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas should be freely granted but require a hearing to determine whether a reasonable and legitimate basis exists)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (8th Dist. 1980) (articulates factors and four-part test for reviewing denial of plea-withdrawal motion)
Barker v. United States, 579 F.2d 1219 (10th Cir. 1978) (quoted for principle that absent unjust or unfair action there is no abuse of discretion)