2022 Ohio 1182
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Appellant Antyone Askew, Jr. was indicted in 2018 for second-degree burglary and fifth-degree theft; public defender appointed.
- After a denied request for new appointed counsel, Askew pled guilty to second-degree burglary on November 16, 2020 following a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and factual recitation (video, pawn shop receipt, family ID).
- Court ordered a presentence investigation; the state later filed a sentencing memo seeking 7–8 years.
- While released on bond pending sentencing, Askew was arrested on separate federal drug and weapons charges; he then moved (March 25, 2021) to withdraw his guilty plea, citing asserted innocence and adverse federal sentencing consequences.
- Trial court held a hearing April 9, 2021, concluded the motion was a change of heart prompted by new federal charges, denied the motion, and sentenced Askew to six years (with jail-time credit). Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion in denying a presentence motion to withdraw plea | The motion was a post-hoc effort motivated by Askew's own new federal arrests; no reasonable basis to withdraw | Motion was timely; presented reasonable, legitimate reasons (asserted innocence; federal sentencing impact) | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion under Crim.R. 32.1 and Xie factors; court found change of heart, not a legitimate basis |
| Competence of counsel at plea | Counsel was competent and adequately prepared (met multiple times, reviewed videos; same counsel obtained acquittal in separate case) | Askew argued disagreements and request for new counsel showed competence issues | Court found counsel was highly competent at plea; presumption of competence applied |
| Claim of innocence / complete defense | State: video, pawn records, family ID, and Askew's later admission at restitution hearing undermine innocence claim | Askew maintained innocence in PSI and at hearing | Court found claim contradicted by record (video and admissions); not a sufficient basis to withdraw |
| Timing and motive for motion | Motion filed only after federal charges and likely aimed to avoid impact on those charges; change of heart and self-created circumstances | Motion was filed before sentencing and defendant asserted no prejudice to prosecution | Court recognized motion was timely but held motive (self-created federal exposure) and change-of-heart factors weigh against withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (sets standard that presentence plea-withdrawal motions should be freely allowed but are within trial court discretion and require a hearing to determine reasonable and legitimate basis)
- State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1st Dist. 1995) (lists non-exhaustive factors to balance when evaluating a presentence motion to withdraw a plea)
- State v. Lott, 51 Ohio St.3d 160 (Ohio 1990) (attorney properly licensed is presumed competent)
- State v. Walton, 2 Ohio App.3d 117 (10th Dist. 1981) (appellate review of presentence plea-withdrawal depends on case-specific facts)
- State v. Sabatino, 102 Ohio App.3d 483 (8th Dist. 1995) (a defendant’s change of heart or mistaken expectation about sentence is not a legitimate basis to withdraw a plea)