State v. Hill, 2013 Ohio 3873

Michael D. Hill, Jr. pleaded guilty on November 14, 2011 to seven counts of forgery and one count of possession of marijuana (all fifth-degree felonies) pursuant to a negotiated plea; 13 other counts were dismissed.
Sentencing was scheduled for January 4, 2012. Hill later moved (pre-sentence) to withdraw his guilty plea and the trial court ordered briefing; the motion was denied on February 8, 2012.
At the January 4 hearing Hill explained his change of heart: he pleaded guilty to be present for the birth of his first child and later claimed some of the charged conduct was not his. He did not present evidence of innocence or request an evidentiary hearing.
On June 12, 2012 the trial court imposed consecutive ten-month terms on each of the eight counts (total 80 months). The court’s oral and written sentencing statements did not expressly recite the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) statutory findings required for consecutive terms.
The Third District affirmed denial of the motion to withdraw the plea (no abuse of discretion) but reversed the consecutive-sentencing portion as clearly and convincingly contrary to law for failure to make the statutory findings, and remanded for limited resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Hill’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea	The State argued the plea was knowing and voluntary after a proper Crim.R. 11 colloquy, counsel was effective, and Hill offered only a change of heart without evidence of innocence	Hill argued he was pressured to plead guilty to be present for his child’s birth and later realized he was innocent of some counts	Denial affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion — plea was knowingly voluntary, counsel adequate, and Hill offered no evidentiary support for innocence
Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed	The State relied on sentencing discretion and asserted the court considered statutory factors	Hill argued the aggregate 80‑month consecutive sentence was excessive/unreasonable	Reversed and remanded: appellate court found no clear indication the court made the R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings on the record or in the entry; sentence is contrary to law and remand for resentencing limited to making required findings

State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (trial court has discretion on pre-sentence plea-withdrawal and reversal requires abuse of discretion)
State v. Drake, 73 Ohio App.3d 640 (pre-sentence motions to withdraw plea are generally freely allowed but not automatic)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Griffin, 141 Ohio App.3d 551 (factors appellate courts consider when reviewing denial of pre-sentence plea-withdrawal)