State v. Hill
2014 Ohio 26
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Virgil Hill was indicted on seven counts including kidnapping, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, disrupting public services, and two counts of rape; the alleged victim was his former girlfriend.
- Psychiatric evaluation found Hill competent to stand trial but noted limited education, illiteracy, treatment for anxiety/depression, and intermittent auditory hallucinations.
- On the day of trial Hill pleaded guilty to assault (first-degree misdemeanor) and sexual battery (third-degree felony; Tier III sex-offense requiring lifetime 90-day registration).
- Before sentencing Hill filed a presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming innocence, fear/duress, and mental-health issues; the trial court held a hearing.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding Hill’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent after a full Crim.R. 11 colloquy and a hearing; Hill was sentenced to an aggregate 42 months.
- This court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion; a concurring opinion questioned whether the record contained an adequate factual basis for the sexual-battery plea given Hill’s persistent claims of innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea | State: trial court properly exercised discretion after full plea colloquy and hearing | Hill: plea was involuntary due to fear/duress, mental-health issues, and innocence; should be withdrawn | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent and court gave full consideration |
| Whether a claim of innocence alone warrants withdrawal of a plea | State: mere protestations insufficient if plea was voluntary | Hill: his claim of innocence entitles him to withdraw plea | Held: claim of innocence insufficient absent more than a change of heart |
| Whether Crim.R. 11 protections were satisfied before accepting the plea | State: court conducted full Crim.R. 11 colloquy and ensured understanding | Hill: limited education and mental health raise doubt about voluntariness | Held: Crim.R. 11 inquiry adequate; Hill denied coercion and affirmed understanding |
| Whether there was a factual basis for the sexual-battery plea when defendant maintained innocence | State: evidence (victim’s statements) supported coercion-based sexual battery | Hill: insisted he did not rape or sexually assault; plea lacked factual basis | Held: majority assumed sufficient basis for plea; concurrence questioned whether factual basis for sexual battery was adequately explored and whether withdrawal might have been warranted on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (standard for presentence plea-withdrawal motions and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (Ohio Ct. App. 1980) (factors supporting denial of plea-withdrawal: competent counsel, full Crim.R. 11 hearing, complete withdrawal hearing, and record showing full consideration)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (defendant may plead guilty while maintaining innocence only when strong evidence of actual guilt supports the plea)
- State v. Drake, 73 Ohio App.3d 640 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (mere change of heart about plea or sentence is insufficient to permit withdrawal)