State v. Gooden
2019 Ohio 2917
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- In January 2018 Charles Gooden was indicted for multiple sexual offenses against a then-10-year-old relative; he was charged as an adult because the case was filed after his 21st birthday.
- On July 19, 2018 Gooden pleaded guilty to two counts of rape (R.C. 2907.02(A)(2)), one count of attempted rape, and one count of witness intimidation; other counts were nolled.
- At plea hearing defense counsel and the court discussed likely sentence range (court indicated 5–7 years), but the state did not bind itself to any sentence.
- Before sentencing Gooden moved to withdraw his plea after learning of an allegedly exculpatory photograph and citing other evidence; the photograph was not produced at the hearing.
- The trial court held a full hearing, denied the motion to withdraw, and sentenced Gooden to seven years’ imprisonment (to run concurrently with another three-year sentence), imposed postrelease control, and classified him as a Tier III sex offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a pre-sentence motion to withdraw the guilty plea | State: Crim.R. 11 compliance and lack of new exculpatory evidence; plea knowing and voluntary; jail call and other facts justify denial | Gooden: Motion raised after plea based on newly discovered exculpatory photograph and other evidence; plea induced by court’s statements about likely sentence | Denied — no abuse of discretion; plea was knowingly entered, full Crim.R.11 colloquy and fair hearing; photograph not shown to be exculpatory |
| Whether the sentence (more than minimum) lacked record support or was contrary to law | State: Sentence within statutory range and court considered R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors; defendant’s criminal history and victim age support sentence | Gooden: Record does not clearly and convincingly support more-than-minimum sentence; mitigation (age at offense) warrants lesser term | Denied — sentence within statutory range and supported by record; court stated it considered required factors |
| Whether ordering defendant to pay court costs without on-the-record discussion was error requiring remand | State: Beasley allows defendant to seek waiver by motion rather than automatic remand | Gooden: Costs imposed though court did not orally address them at sentencing | Denied — no remand required; defendant may file motion to seek waiver under State v. Beasley |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (standard for reviewing plea withdrawal and Crim.R. 32.1; abuse of discretion review)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (Ohio App. 1981) (factors for evaluating pre-sentence plea-withdrawal motions)
- State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (Ohio 2016) (standard for appellate review of felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
- State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (Ohio 2018) (procedure for seeking waiver of court costs; no automatic remand required)