State v. Inskeep
2016 Ohio 7098
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Steven L. Inskeep was indicted on four marijuana-related felonies; he pled guilty to two fifth-degree felonies (possession and illegal cultivation) in exchange for dismissal of two third-degree counts and a promised recommendation for community control.
- Inskeep initially had court-appointed counsel, sought replacement, and was ultimately represented by attorneys from the Ohio Public Defender's Office.
- He filed a pretrial motion to suppress; on the scheduled suppression date he withdrew that motion and entered guilty pleas after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy.
- Before sentencing Inskeep filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas, claiming emotional distress, duress, and ineffective counsel for failing to prepare the suppression hearing; he also sought a psychological evaluation.
- The trial court held a hearing, denied the motion to withdraw (finding Inskeep had no reasonable basis beyond a change of heart), accepted the plea, and sentenced him to three years community control.
- On appeal Inskeep argued (1) his pleas were not knowing/voluntary, (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying the pre-sentence withdrawal request, and (3) he received ineffective assistance/there was a conflict of interest at the withdrawal hearing. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Inskeep) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea under Crim.R. 11 | Court complied with Crim.R.11; plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent | Plea was not knowing/voluntary; felt compelled by attorneys; lacked understanding | Plea was valid; trial court ensured comprehension and voluntariness; assignment overruled |
| Denial of pre-sentence motion to withdraw plea | Defendant offered only change of heart and no new evidence; court applied Xie factors and exercised discretion properly | Claimed duress, emotional turmoil, inadequate counsel preparation for suppression hearing | Denial affirmed: no reasonable/legitimate basis to withdraw; full and fair consideration given |
| Ineffective assistance / conflict of interest at withdrawal hearing | Counsel acted reasonably, advised plea as in client’s best interest; defendant offered no evidence beyond self-serving claims | Counsel failed to prepare for suppression, pressured plea; conflict because counsel did not testify at withdrawal hearing | No ineffective assistance shown under Strickland; no conflict warranting relief; assignment overruled |
| Whether calling defense counsel would require substitution of counsel (procedural point) | Not applicable here because counsel were not called to testify and defendant presented no evidence | Relies on precedent that calling counsel to testify without new counsel can deny right to counsel | Court distinguished prior case; no counsel called, so no right-to-counsel violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (a guilty plea not knowing and voluntary violates due process)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a),(b) require substantial compliance; definition of substantial compliance)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (trial courts should literally comply with Crim.R. 11 for constitutional rights; strict compliance required for waiver of federal constitutional rights)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (pre-sentence motions to withdraw pleas should be freely allowed but defendant must show reasonable and legitimate basis; nine-factor test guidance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St.3d 136 (1989) (Ohio adoption of Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)