State v. Casey
2012 Ohio 3740
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Casey pleaded guilty to drug possession, drug paraphernalia, and driving under suspension on July 25, 2011.
- Casey moved to withdraw his guilty plea on August 2, 2011 after retaining new counsel.
- State did not oppose the motion; at sentencing three months later, the court denied the motion and sentenced Casey to three years of community control.
- Casey appeals, raising a single assignment of error challenging the denial of the presentence withdrawal motion.
- Crim.R. 32.1 allows a presentence withdrawal motion but vests discretion in the trial court, requiring a hearing to assess a reasonable basis for withdrawal.
- The appellate court ultimately sustains the assignment of error in part and reverses and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying the presentence motion to withdraw plea without a proper hearing | Casey argued for liberal withdrawal and a hearing. | State did not oppose withdrawal but preferred sentencing; no full hearing conducted. | Denial vacated; remanded for proper hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (presentence withdrawal should be liberally granted)
- State v. Wilborn, 2011-Ohio-1038 (9th Dist. 2011) (trial court must hold a hearing on presentence motion to withdraw)
- State v. Robertson, 2011-Ohio-4300 (9th Dist. 2011) (no full evidentiary hearing required, but inquiry expected)
- Klein v. Moutz, 2006-Ohio-4974 (9th Dist. 2006) (remand for court to exercise discretion after hearing)