State v. Hines
2020 Ohio 663
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Anthony Hines was indicted on Nov. 27, 2017 for having a weapon while under disability (third-degree felony) and improperly handling a firearm in a motor vehicle (fifth-degree felony); both counts included forfeiture specifications.
- Hines initially pled not guilty; substitute counsel appeared at some pretrials; on May 1, 2018 Hines (with counsel of record present) unexpectedly changed his plea to guilty to the improperly handling a firearm count while the state moved to dismiss the disability count.
- Sentencing was set for June; Hines discharged his original counsel, retained new counsel, and filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on June 7, 2018 (pre-sentence).
- Hines asserted he was blindsided by the plea, lacked adequate communication with counsel, claimed innocence, and moved promptly after acquiring new counsel.
- The trial court denied the Crim.R. 32.1 motion, relying primarily on the adequacy of the plea colloquy under Crim.R. 11; the court of appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Hines’s pre-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea | The court properly conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and the plea was knowing and voluntary, so no basis to withdraw | Motion was timely; Hines asserted innocence, confusion and poor communication with counsel, promptly replaced counsel, and sought withdrawal before sentencing | Reversed: trial court abused its discretion by giving dispositive weight to the colloquy and not giving full, fair consideration to withdrawal factors; remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (establishes abuse-of-discretion review and that presentence plea-withdrawal motions should be freely and liberally allowed)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (requires a full and fair hearing and consideration of a Crim.R. 32.1 motion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (defines abuse of discretion as more than error of law or judgment)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (movant’s good faith, credibility, and weight of assertions are for the trial court to resolve under Crim.R. 32.1)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (articulates standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Davner, 100 N.E.3d 1247 (colloquy perfection is not dispositive where other withdrawal factors support relief)