State v. Haywood
2014 Ohio 2801
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Haywood pled guilty to trafficking cocaine (count1) and trafficking heroin (count3) under R.C. 2925.03(A)(2), plus having a weapon while under a disability (R.C. 2923.13(A)(3).
- An agreement for release on recognizance conditioned on appearing at sentencing stated that failure would trigger maximum consecutive sentences totaling 15.5 years.
- Haywood absconded and did not appear for sentencing; after being apprehended, he moved to withdraw his pleas pre-sentencing.
- The trial court held a full hearing, denied withdrawal, appointed new counsel, and continued sentencing.
- At sentencing the court imposed the 15.5-year aggregate sentence that had been contingent on Haywood’s failure to appear.
- The appellate court reviews the motion to withdraw for an abuse of discretion and reviews the sentence under R.C. 2953.08(G)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the presentence motion to withdraw properly overruled? | Haywood argues the court should have granted withdrawal. | State contends no abuse; withdrawal lacks justification beyond remorse. | No abuse; withdrawal denied for lack of justification beyond remorse. |
| Are the cocaine and heroin trafficking convictions allied offenses of similar import? | Haywood contends merger under R.C. 2941.25 should occur. | State argues there were separate conduct and animus; not allied. | Not allied; each offense punished separately. |
| Did the trial court properly impose consecutive sentences and address sentencing requirements? | Haywood challenges consecutive-sentence findings and various statutory-notice concerns. | State asserts findings were made and record supports purposes of sentencing; notices were proper or harmless. | Consecutive-sentence findings supported; sentencing proper; some claimed-notifications considered harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (standard for withdraw-a-plea motion review; liberal approach subject to abuse of discretion)
- Pembaur v. Leis, 1 Ohio St.3d 89 (1982) (abuse of discretion involves more than mere error; requires unreasonable conduct)
- State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1995) (factors for abuse of discretion in withdrawal motions)
- State v. Sykes, 2007-Ohio-3086 (1st Dist.) (timeliness and basis for withdrawal must be considered)
- State v. Temaj-Felix, 2013-Ohio-4463 (1st Dist. Hamilton) (plain-error review for unraised allied-offense issue)
- State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St.3d 482 (2012) (test for allied offenses under R.C. 2941.25; dissimilar import or separate animus)
- State v. Delfino, 22 Ohio St.3d 270 (1986) (possession of different drugs can constitute multiple offenses under 2925.11)
- State v. Heflin, 2012-Ohio-3988 (6th Dist. Lucas) (Heroin vs cocaine trafficking not allied; separate offenses with different conduct)
- State v. Cutlip, 2012-Ohio-5790 (2d Dist. Champaign) (statutory-notice requirements for drug-testing information addressed on harmless error rationale)