State v. Cohen
2013 Ohio 2928
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Cohen was indicted for felonious assault (deadly weapon) and pleaded guilty without an asserted sentencing agreement.
- The trial court advised sentencing would be by Judge Gorman, with Judge Huffman handling the sentencing decision, and a pre-sentence investigation was ordered.
- Cohen anticipated a two-year prison sentence, which he communicated to him by his attorney, leading to dissatisfaction and a request for a continuance to discuss the sentence.
- Cohen moved to withdraw his guilty plea after learning the anticipated two-year sentence; the trial court held a hearing on the motion.
- The court denied the motion to withdraw the plea, adopting a post-sentencing standard to evaluate the motion once Cohen learned of the anticipated sentence.
- Cohen timely appeals, challenging the denial, arguing he was entitled to pre-sentencing considering standard and that there was an implied promise of probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard to review motion to withdraw plea | Cohen argues pre-sentencing standard should apply since motion was filed before sentencing. | State contends Long-based post-sentencing standard applies because Cohen learned of the sentence prior to formal sentencing. | Post-sentencing standard applied; no manifest injustice shown. |
| Whether the motion to withdraw was warranted by manifest injustice | Cohen asserts trial counsel induced the plea by misrepresenting likely probation. | State contends no credible promise of probation; record supports trial court credibility findings. | No manifest injustice; trial court's credibility findings uphold denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (pre/post-sentencing standards for withdrawal of guilty plea)
- State v. Lambros, 44 Ohio App.3d 102 (1988) (no absolute right to withdraw plea; pre-sentencing discretion limits)
- State v. Blaylock, 2011-Ohio-4865 (Ohio) (abuse of discretion standard for post-sentencing withdrawal denial)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1980) (pre-sentencing withdrawal factors (competent counsel, Crim.R. 11 hearing, etc.))
- Kadwell v. United States, 315 F.2d 667 (C.A.9 1963) (policy rationale for pre-sentencing withdrawal limits)
- State v. McComb, 2008-Ohio-295 (Ohio) (post-sentencing standard alignment with pre-sentencing considerations)