State v. Brundage
2020 Ohio 653
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Appellant Scott Brundage pleaded guilty to rape and multiple counts of gross sexual imposition involving multiple children over an extended period.
- Days after the plea hearing and before sentencing, Brundage sent a letter (construed as a motion) seeking to withdraw his plea, alleging counsel pressured him and misrepresented potential sentence.
- Trial court allowed prior counsel to withdraw, appointed new counsel, held a hearing on the motion, and admitted a recorded phone call made by Brundage the day he pled.
- At the plea colloquy (Crim.R. 11) Brundage acknowledged the applicable sentencing range and signed a written plea agreement; at the recorded call he expressed understanding and no dissatisfaction with counsel.
- The trial court denied the pre-sentence motion to withdraw, imposed maximum and consecutive sentences totaling 24 years, and Brundage appealed.
- The Ninth District affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal (change of heart and unsupported allegations) and concluding the record supported maximum and consecutive sentences, with the required statutory findings incorporated in the entry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brundage) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a pre‑sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea | Plea was knowing and voluntary; defense counsel was competent; court held full Crim.R. 11 colloquy and full withdrawal hearing; recordings show understanding and no complaint | Counsel pressured him and misrepresented likely sentence, giving a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw | Denied—no abuse of discretion: record shows competent representation, full plea colloquy, credible hearing evidence (recording) indicating a change of heart, not grounds to withdraw |
| Whether imposing maximum and consecutive sentences was an abuse of discretion | Sentences are within statutory range; offenses involve multiple victims/extended conduct and lack of remorse; trial court made required consecutive-sentence findings in entry | Maximum and consecutive terms were excessive because Brundage was unlikely to reoffend | Denied—affirmed: trial court had discretion to impose maximum; record supports imposition and contains the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings incorporated into the sentencing entry |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (pre‑sentence plea withdrawal standard; motions should be granted freely and liberally; defendant bears burden to show reasonable and legitimate basis)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (standard for appellate review of felony sentences; modification only on clear and convincing evidence)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (trial court has full discretion to impose any sentence within statutory range; no required findings for maximum terms)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (trial court must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) consecutive‑sentence findings into the entry; no formulaic recitation required)
- State v. Rosemark, 116 Ohio App.3d 306 (factors supporting denial of pre‑sentence plea withdrawal: competent counsel, full plea hearing, and full withdrawal hearing)