State v. Hopkins
2023 Ohio 4311
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Mar’ray Hopkins was indicted in two cases arising from a December 2020 homicide and an April 2021 domestic incident; he ultimately pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement in January 2023.
- In CR-21-660919 Hopkins pled to amended Count 1 (involuntary manslaughter with a three-year firearm spec), Count 5 (felonious assault with three-year firearm spec), and Count 6 (weapons under disability). Other counts were dismissed.
- The parties jointly recommended an aggregate Reagan Tokes sentence of 28 to 33.5 years; a concurrent eight-year sentence was agreed in the second case.
- At sentencing (four days after the plea), Hopkins moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, citing a desire to go to trial and loss of trust in counsel; the trial court held a hearing and denied the motion, finding only a change of heart.
- The trial court imposed the agreed Reagan Tokes sentence. On appeal Hopkins challenged (1) denial of his presentence motion to withdraw the plea and (2) the constitutionality of the Reagan Tokes Law; he also raised (for the first time on appeal) that the plea hearing occurred while the judge appeared remotely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying Hopkins’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas | Motion was timely but based on a mere change of heart; plea colloquy complied with Crim.R.11; counsel competent; no plausible defense or newly discovered evidence | Hopkins wanted to go to trial, didn’t feel right about the plea, and lost trust/confidence in counsel | Denial affirmed: trial court properly held a hearing, applied relevant factors, and reasonably found only a change of heart (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether Hopkins’s Crim.R.43 right (presence of judge) was violated because the judge appeared remotely at the plea hearing | No contemporaneous objection; the court complied with Crim.R.11; any failure is waived absent plain error | Hopkins contends plea occurred outside the court’s presence because judge was on Zoom | Waived for failure to raise below; no plain error shown (no evidence outcome would differ) |
| Whether the Reagan Tokes Law is unconstitutional as applied to Hopkins | The law is constitutional and governs indefinite sentences; state relies on controlling Ohio Supreme Court precedent | Hopkins argued it violates due process, separation of powers, and jury-trial rights | Rejected: court follows State v. Hacker holding Reagan Tokes is constitutional; challenge overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (framework: presentence plea-withdrawal motions should be liberally granted but trial court has discretion and must hold a hearing)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (8th Dist. 1980) (factors to consider when reviewing plea-withdrawal denials)
- State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1st Dist. 1995) (additional factors for evaluating requests to withdraw pleas)
- AAAA Enters., Inc. v. RiverPlace Cmty. Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (1985) (abuse-of-discretion standard requires a sound reasoning process)