State v. Cook, 2021 Ohio 2416

Indictment (Oct. 31, 2019) charged Cook with two counts of failure to comply with a police officer (third- and fourth-degree felonies), one count of violating a protection order (fifth-degree felony), and one count of aggravated menacing (misdemeanor).
On Sept. 15, 2020 Cook pled guilty to one count of failure to comply (fourth-degree felony) and one count of violating a protection order (fifth-degree felony); state nolled the other counts and parties jointly recommended a pre-sentence investigation.
At the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing the court confirmed Cook’s competency, reviewed the facts (stalking/following his ex-wife despite a protection order and fleeing from a trooper), and advised Cook of charges, penalties, and rights; Cook stated he understood and pleaded voluntarily.
Two days after pleading guilty, Cook sent a letter seeking to withdraw the plea, claiming he misunderstood there was no agreed sentence, thought he would receive time served or probation, and said he had not read the plea form because he lacked reading glasses.
The trial court held a Crim.R. 32.1 hearing, found Cook’s reasons unpersuasive (concluding a change of heart rather than true confusion), denied the motion, sentenced Cook to an aggregate 2-year prison term with credit for 358 days, and Cook appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Cook's pre-sentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea	Trial court correctly applied the Xie balancing test; Cook failed to show a reasonable and legitimate basis; majority of factors (competent counsel, full Crim.R.11 colloquy, full hearing, credibility) weigh against withdrawal.	Cook claimed misunderstanding of sentence (thought plea would yield time served or probation), confusion about felony charges, and inability to read the plea form at the hearing (no glasses).	Affirmed. Court found no abuse of discretion after balancing nine factors; trial court credited that Cook had a change of heart rather than a legitimate misunderstanding.

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (sets standard that pre-sentence plea-withdrawal motions should generally be freely allowed but requires a defendant to show a reasonable and legitimate basis; balancing test applied)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines "abuse of discretion" as a decision that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)