State v. Burke, 2019 Ohio 4744

Appellant Emory Burke was charged in two Lawrence County cases: a forgery felony (18-CR-398) and a separate bill of information with multiple misdemeanor and felony counts (18-CR-491).
On November 14, 2018, after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and with counsel, Burke entered guilty pleas to all counts; sentencing was set for December 4, 2018.
At the December 4 sentencing hearing Burke asked for a short furlough to visit his sick mother; the court denied the furlough because of docket constraints.
Immediately after the furlough denial Burke orally sought to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming he did not understand the plea, that he was under the influence of marijuana at the plea hearing, and that he believed he would fare better at trial.
The trial court conducted an on-the-record colloquy, found Burke’s reasons not credible (inferring the request was to delay incarceration), denied the withdrawal request, and imposed concurrent prison terms totaling 2 years, 11 months plus restitution.
Burke appealed solely arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying his presentence request to withdraw his guilty pleas; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Burke's presentence request to withdraw his guilty pleas	The State: the court properly exercised discretion — Burke had competent counsel, received a full Crim.R.11 colloquy, the court fully considered the oral request, and Burke's reasons were not credible or timely	Burke: he should be allowed to withdraw because he didn’t understand the plea, was under the influence when he pleaded, believed he’d do better at trial, and sought to avoid immediate incarceration to see his mother	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion. Court found Crim.R.11 compliance, full consideration of the request, movant lacked credibility, and the asserted reasons (including change of heart or furlough motive) did not warrant withdrawal

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (presentence withdrawal should be freely and liberally granted but is within trial court discretion)
State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010) (discusses standard for evaluating plea withdrawal requests)
State v. Spivey, 81 Ohio St.3d 405 (1998) (defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a plea)
State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (2013) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (abuse of discretion explained)
In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 (1991) (appellate court may not substitute its judgment for trial court's)
State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 (2002) (undue delay in filing withdrawal motion undermines credibility)
State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (movant's good faith and credibility are for trial court to resolve)
State v. Lambros, 44 Ohio App.3d 102 (1988) (change of heart is insufficient reason to withdraw plea)