2023 Ohio 1626
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Indictment (Sept. 2021) charged Campbell with two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, OVI (misdemeanor), and three misdemeanors related to the ATV crash that killed his passenger.
- On April 21, 2022, Campbell pled guilty to a lesser-included offense of Count 1 (aggravated vehicular homicide, felony 2) and to Count 3 (OVI, first-degree misdemeanor) after the prosecutor proffered that Campbell, while impaired, crashed a gas-powered ATV causing the passenger’s death.
- Campbell filed a pre-sentence Motion to Withdraw his guilty plea; hearing held June 6, 2022. Girlfriend testified Campbell sustained traumatic brain injury and had memory/anxiety issues; defense counsel (public defender Melissa Blake) testified she met with Campbell, reviewed evidence, consulted an accident reconstructionist but declined to retain one, and believed Campbell competent.
- Trial court applied the Peterseim factors, found counsel highly competent, Crim.R.11 colloquy adequate, full hearing afforded, and that Campbell’s stated basis was essentially a change of heart. Motion denied.
- Sentencing (June 15, 2022): indefinite prison term of 5–7.5 years for Count 1 consecutive to 180 days for Count 3 (total 5.5–8 years), fines and license suspensions. Appellant appealed; the Eleventh District affirmed denial of the motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred denying pre-sentence motion to withdraw plea | Trial court properly exercised discretion under Crim.R.32.1/Xie and gave full consideration | Campbell had reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw plea (ineffective counsel, new/undisclosed evidence) | Denial affirmed; defendant’s change of heart and general assertions insufficient; no abuse of discretion |
| Competence of counsel / failure to retain expert | Counsel was highly competent; decision not to retain a reconstructionist was strategic and reasonable | Counsel was ineffective for not retaining an accident reconstruction expert | Court credited counsel’s strategy and found no ineffective assistance supporting withdrawal |
| Voluntariness / defendant’s mental state (TBI, medication, marijuana) | Colloquy and counsel’s observations showed defendant competent and understanding | TBI, medications, and marijuana rendered plea unknowing, involuntary | Court found defendant’s Rule 11 responses and counsel’s testimony persuasive; voluntariness upheld |
| Adequacy of plea and withdrawal hearings (Crim.R.11) | Court conducted a full Rule 11 colloquy and impartial withdrawal hearing | Defendant contended coercion, insufficient time, and procedural defects | Court found full compliance with Crim.R.11 and a complete motion hearing; no coercion shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (pre-sentence plea-withdrawal standard; hearing and trial court discretion)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1980) (four-factor test for evaluating pre-sentence plea-withdrawal requests)
- State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1995) (alternative multi-factor analysis courts sometimes apply to plea-withdrawal motions)
- State v. Taylor, 33 N.E.3d 123 (2015) (affirming denial of pre-sentence withdrawal under Peterseim factors)