State v. Becraft, 89 N.E.3d 218

Background

Becraft pled guilty to one count of aggravated robbery (first-degree felony) and was originally sentenced to nine years and $2,000 restitution; the State agreed to remain silent at sentencing and stipulated Becraft did not possess a firearm.
On direct appeal this court affirmed the conviction, reversed the $2,000 restitution (no record support) and remanded only for limited resentencing due to sentencing errors; the plea itself was held knowing and voluntary.
On remand Becraft moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing ineffective assistance (promised lesser sentence), late disclosure of a victim impact statement, and favorable polygraph results; the trial court denied the motion after hearings.
At resentencing the parties stipulated the victim’s economic loss was $1,200; the court ordered an 8-year term and $1,200 restitution to Becraft (while a co-defendant had been ordered to pay $583.33).
Becraft appealed, arguing (1) the sentence was contrary to law (restitution windfall; court ignored firearm stipulation; lack of remorse), (2) the State breached the plea by speaking at proceedings, and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to withdraw the plea.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Becraft)	Held
Restitution amount	The court may order restitution up to victim's economic loss; no bar to apportionment among co-defendants	$1,200 order plus co-defendant’s $583.33 creates double recovery/windfall and exceeds agreed $1,200 loss	Reversed in part: $1,200 restitution modified to $583.33 because ordering both payments without joint-and-several liability produced impermissible windfall (contrary to R.C. 2929.18)
Alleged breach of plea silence	State’s comment about victim’s loss occurred while litigating plea-withdrawal motion, not at resentencing; even if breach, Becraft suffered no prejudice because parties later stipulated to $1,200	State breached the plea by speaking at the January 15 hearing and thus violated Santobello obligations	Overruled: no breach at resentencing (comment was during motion hearing); even if breach occurred earlier, no plain-error prejudice because stipulation fixed loss at $1,200
Consideration of firearm in sentencing	Court may consider broad sentencing information including co-defendant’s use of a firearm; it did not treat Becraft as having possessed a weapon	Court ignored stipulation that Becraft had no firearm and based sentence on firearm use	Overruled: court clarified it considered co-defendant’s use of a firearm, not that Becraft possessed one—this was permissible sentencing information
Denial of motion to withdraw plea on remand	Trial court correctly exercised discretion and (alternatively) lacked jurisdiction to vacate plea after direct appeal affirmed conviction absent a remand to reconsider plea	Motion to withdraw should have been granted on remand due to newly discovered material (victim impact, polygraph) and ineffective assistance; trial court failed to give full hearing	Overruled: court found (1) Special Prosecutors/Ketterer bars vacating plea on limited resentencing remand and (2) even applying presentence Xie factors, Becraft gave no reasonable, legitimate basis to withdraw; denial not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (standard of appellate review for felony sentencing under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2))
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (prosecutor must keep plea promises; remedy when breached)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (presentence motions to withdraw plea should be freely and liberally granted; factors for evaluating withdrawal)
State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (trial court lacks jurisdiction to vacate plea after appellate affirmance absent remand)
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (Special Prosecutors applied to bar motion to withdraw plea on limited resentencing remand)