State v. Hicks
2018 Ohio 1964
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Bishop Hicks was indicted on multiple counts arising from a January 23, 2017 armed robbery; Count 1 (aggravated robbery) was amended to attempted aggravated robbery with a one-year firearm specification as part of a plea deal.
- On June 6, 2017 Hicks pled guilty to Count 1 as amended; the remaining counts were nolled. Presentence reports and a psychiatric assessment were ordered.
- At sentencing on July 6, 2017 the trial court imposed an aggregate three-year prison term (two years for the offense plus one year for the firearm specification).
- During sentencing Hicks, appearing with counsel, made a brief pro se statement: "I want to take my plea back," and later asked, "what if I want to withdraw my plea?" Counsel responded that it was late; the court said Hicks could seek withdrawal later and would hold a separate hearing if he moved to withdraw.
- Hicks retained new counsel and filed a formal motion to withdraw his guilty plea on July 12, 2017, alleging ADHD-related misunderstanding and that he had told prior counsel he wanted to withdraw; the trial court denied the motion on December 5, 2017.
- Hicks appealed, arguing (1) the trial court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing on his oral motion to withdraw at sentencing, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not press a plea-withdrawal request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hicks) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing on Hicks’s oral, pro se request to withdraw his plea at sentencing | The court should deny relief because Hicks’s single-sentence, pro se remark was not a proper motion while represented by counsel and was effectively abandoned | Hicks says his oral statement at sentencing demanded a hearing and the court should have entertained it | Court: No abuse — the pro se remark was not properly before the court (hybrid-representation rule) and Hicks abandoned the request |
| Whether Hicks received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing for counsel’s failure to seek withdrawal of the plea | Counsel’s performance was reasonable; there is no record that Hicks clearly and timely informed counsel he wanted to withdraw, and counsel secured substantial plea concessions | Counsel failed to request a recess/hearing and advocate for withdrawal after Hicks indicated he wanted to take the plea back | Court: No ineffective assistance — no deficient performance or prejudice shown; plea deal benefits and lack of clear timely request undermine the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Xie v. State, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (trial court review of motions to withdraw plea is abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Peterseim v. State, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (motions to withdraw plea reviewed for unfairness; defendant must show manifest injustice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Smith, 17 Ohio St.3d 98 (licensed attorneys are presumed competent)
- State v. Hester, 45 Ohio St.2d 71 (ineffective assistance inquiry focuses on whether accused had a fair trial and substantial justice was done)