State v. Creed
2012 Ohio 2627
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Indictment: 15 counts against Creed for rape, gross sexual imposition, and kidnapping with SVP and sexual motivation specifications; all counts dismissed except three guilty pleas to sexual battery (R.C. 2907.03(A)(1))
- Plea: Creed pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual battery, amended from rape, a felony of the third degree, without SVP specifications
- Pre-sentence motion: Creed moved to withdraw his guilty plea alleging attorney pressure and confusion
- Hearing and ruling: trial court held a hearing, denied the motion to withdraw, finding Creed lacked credibility
- Sentence: Creed was sentenced to three years for each count of sexual battery, consecutive, aggregate nine years
- Procedural posture: on appeal, Creed challenges the denial of his presentence withdrawal motion; Williams v. Ohio affects the punitive nature of Chapter 2950 but Court still affirms
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre-sentence withdrawal motion was properly denied | Creed | Creed | No abuse; four Peterseim factors satisfied |
| Whether Crim.R. 11 advisements were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary given Williams impact | Creed argued lack of notice about 1,000-foot school restriction undermined knowingness | Creed maintained missing collateral consequence notices invalidated plea | Substantial compliance; informed about Tier III status; Williams punishes chapter as punitive but did not invalidate plea |
| Whether Creed’s asserted innocence justified withdrawal | Creed insisted innocence; seeks withdrawal | Creed's innocence claim warrants withdrawal | Not sufficient; innocence protests do not compel withdrawal; four-factor Peterseim satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist.1980) (four-factor standard for pre-sentence withdrawal of plea)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992) (pre-sentence withdrawal requires a hearing and legitimate basis; discretionary)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990) (substantial compliance standard for Crim.R.11 nonconstitutional advisements)
- State v. Rainey, 446 N.E.2d 188 (10th Dist.1982) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary; substantial compliance concepts)
- State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St.3d 344, 952 N.E.2d 1108 (2011) (R.C. Chapter 2950 punitive post SB-10; Chapter remains part of penalty)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 1996-Ohio-179, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996) (Crim.R.11 ensures plea is knowing, intelligent, voluntary; substantial compliance)