State v. Bisson, 2013 Ohio 2141

Indicted in December 2011 for felonious assault, aggravated possession of drugs, and disruption of public services; initial plea not guilty, bond set at $50,000 cash or surety.
Plea negotiations led to dismissal of aggravated drug possession and disruption charges; defendant pled guilty to attempted aggravated assault (fifth-degree felony).
Trial court conducted an oral plea hearing, explained plea ramifications, and heard wife’s testimony regarding safety if bond conditions changed.
Court accepted the guilty plea, referred the case for presentence report, and reset bond to $50,000 personal recognizance.
Before sentencing (April 13, 2012), defendant moved to withdraw guilty plea under Crim.R. 32.1, asserting lack of guilt feeling.
At sentencing, court denied the motion to withdraw, imposed 100 days in jail and 60 months of community control/probation with strict supervision and conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence of 60 months community control was unlawful	Bisson argues the length exceeds minimum and factors were not properly considered	Bisson claims improper reliance on factors and lack of explicit consideration	No abuse of discretion; sentence within statutory range and properly considered factors presumed.
Whether the trial court erred by denying Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw guilty plea	State contends timely plea withdrawal not shown to be justified	Bisson asserts plea was not knowingly made under optimal circumstances	No abuse of discretion; full hearing and Crim.R. 11 compliance shown; denial upheld.

State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006-Ohio-856) (limits on judicial fact-finding in sentencing; review for legality and discretion)
State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 (2008-Ohio-4912) (presumption factors were considered if record silent about factors)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (four factors for withdrawal of guilty plea; necessity of knowing the consequences)
State v. Bever, 2010-Ohio-6443 (11th Dist. No.) (two-prong/factor-based review of sentencing within statutory range)
State v. Chapdelaine, 11th Dist. No. 2009-L-166 (2010-Ohio-2683) (recognizes no explicit need to record every factor; presumption factors were considered)
State v. Tenney, 2010-Ohio-6248 (11th Dist.) (silent record may imply consideration of statutory factors)
State v. Vargo, 2011-Ohio-6690 (11th Dist.) (presumption factors were considered when record silent)
State v. Johnson, 2008-Ohio-6980 (11th Dist.) (liberal approach to pre-sentence withdrawal when timely and properly motivated)
State v. Parham, 2012-Ohio-2833 (11th Dist.) (four-factor test for abuse of discretion in withdrawal of plea)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (8th Dist.) (syllabus guidance on withdrawal standard (predecessor))