State v. Harmon, 2021 Ohio 2013

Cody W. Harmon was indicted on failure to provide change of address (F4), burglary (F2), and petty theft (M1) and initially pleaded not guilty but later entered guilty pleas to all counts.
A plea form and judicial advice were filed; the court found the pleas knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and deferred sentencing pending a PSI.
At sentencing three months later Harmon orally sought to withdraw his guilty pleas; the court denied the request after hearing argument and statements.
The trial court sentenced Harmon to 6 months (count 1), an indefinite 3–4.5 years (count 2), and 180 days (count 3), with counts 2 and 3 concurrent and consecutive to count 1; post-release control was imposed.
Harmon appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by denying his pre-sentence motion to withdraw his plea, and (2) his consecutive sentence is contrary to law because the court failed to make required R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plea-withdrawal motion but vacated the sentence and remanded for re-sentencing because the court did not make the statutory consecutive-sentence findings on the record and in the entry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Harmon's pre-sentence oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea	Denial proper: plea was knowing, counsel competent, hearing sufficient, timing unreasonable, and no meritorious defense	Coerced plea, conflict with judge, potential exculpatory witnesses, communication problems with counsel	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; nine-factor test favors State (no substantiated innocence or inadequate counsel)
Whether consecutive sentences were lawful without R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record and in the entry	Sentencing was supported by recidivism/seriousness factors and court statements	Consecutive term unlawful: court failed to make/find statutory R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings at hearing and in entry	Vacated and remanded — trial court failed to make the required consecutive-sentence findings per Bonnell and R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (trial court’s discretion and standards for guilty-plea withdrawal)
State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1995) (factors considered for pre-sentence plea-withdrawal)
State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1981) (pre-sentence withdrawal considerations and standards)
State v. Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895 (2000) (application of plea-withdrawal factors)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must make and incorporate consecutive-sentence findings on the record and in the entry)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard for reviewing felony sentences)