State v. Coleman
2017 Ohio 2826
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wallace Coleman was indicted on multiple secret indictments: possession of cocaine (R.C. 2925.11), kidnapping (R.C. 2905.01), felonious assault (R.C. 2903.12), bribery and complicity to bribery (R.C. 2921.02, 2923.03). Repeat violent-offender specs were later added to two counts.
- Coleman initially pleaded not guilty, then on January 4, 2016 entered guilty pleas to all counts at a change-of-plea hearing; the State did not present evidentiary facts and the court did not make a factual-basis finding at that time.
- After plea entry, trial counsel withdrew; newly appointed counsel filed a pre-sentence motion to withdraw the guilty pleas, claiming ineffective assistance, coercion/pressure to plead, and actual innocence.
- A hearing on the motion to withdraw was held; Coleman testified but the trial court found his testimony not credible and characterized the motion as buyer’s remorse, then denied the motion and sentenced Coleman.
- On appeal to the Fourth District, Coleman argued (1) the plea colloquy failed to satisfy Crim.R. 11(C) (specifically advisement of the right to compulsory process) and constitutional due-process rights, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying the pre-sentence motion to withdraw the pleas (including an ineffective-assistance claim).
- The Fourth District affirmed: it held the Crim.R. 11 advisals (oral use of term “compulsory process” plus a written plea form explaining the court’s power to call witnesses) and the totality of the circumstances satisfied Crim.R. 11; and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying withdrawal, rejecting Coleman’s credibility and ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11(C) as to the right to compulsory process | State: oral use of "compulsory process" plus written plea form explaining court's power to call witnesses and Coleman’s affirmative statements satisfied Crim.R. 11(C) | Coleman: trial court failed to adequately advise him of the right to compulsory process (did not state full Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) language) | Court held compliance satisfied: literal use of "compulsory process," written form explanation, and totality of circumstances made plea knowing, voluntary, and intelligent |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the pre-sentence motion to withdraw pleas | State: Coleman’s motion was buyer’s remorse; court conducted full hearing and acted reasonably | Coleman: ineffective assistance of counsel, pressured to accept plea, and asserts actual innocence | Court held no abuse of discretion: hearing held, credibility determinations supported, counsel not shown deficient, claims of actual innocence inconsistent or unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Veney v. Ohio, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (explains strict literal compliance requirement for constitutional advisals under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c))
- Engle v. Isaac, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (plea-voluntariness standard under Crim.R. 11)
- Clark v. State, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Crim.R. 11 compliance and preferred literal recitation)
- Ballard v. Ohio, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (trial court cannot delegate Crim.R. 11 advisals to defense counsel; totality of circumstances may be considered)
- Xie v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (standard and liberal allowance for pre-sentence withdrawal; necessity of hearing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-part ineffective-assistance test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (application of Strickland to guilty-plea context)
- Montgomery v. State, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 (permitting consideration of additional record evidence to resolve ambiguities in plea colloquy)