State v. DeJesus
2015 Ohio 4111
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- DeJesus was indicted (Oct 18, 2013) for one count of domestic violence (felony 3) and pled not guilty at arraignment.
- He initially filed a motion to suppress statements but withdrew it before trial; later pled guilty (Oct 2, 2014) in exchange for reduction to a felony of the fourth degree.
- After pleading guilty, DeJesus sought to withdraw his plea (oral request Nov 19, 2014); counsel was replaced and he moved to vacate the plea pre-sentence.
- The trial court held a hearing (Jan 23, 2015) and denied the motion to withdraw; DeJesus was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, with up to three years post-release control and court costs.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no non-frivolous issues; DeJesus did not file a pro se brief. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DeJesus’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent | The State argued the plea complied with Crim.R. 11 and due process | DeJesus argued his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made | Court held the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered; Crim.R. 11 substantially complied |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying pre-sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea | The State argued denial was proper because defendant’s reasons were not new and amounted to a change of heart; counsel and plea hearing were adequate | DeJesus argued he had a cell-phone video that would exonerate him and sought to withdraw plea | Court held no abuse of discretion: video was known before plea and appeared incriminating; defendant’s reasons were effectively a change of heart, insufficient to require withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (constitutional requirement that guilty pleas be voluntary and knowing)
- Nero v. State, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Crim.R. 11 substantial compliance standard and defendant’s subjective understanding)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (pre-sentence plea-withdrawal standard: motions should be freely allowed but require a reasonable, legitimate basis)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeons, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (reasonable decisionmaking standard for abuse of discretion)