2013 Ohio 5416
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Carlos Jones was indicted on multiple drug- and weapon-related counts; he pled guilty to Count 2 (trafficking) and Count 4 (weapon while under disability) pursuant to a plea deal that resulted in dismissal of charges against co-defendants.
- Plea was entered October 21, 2010 after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy; sentencing was continued and Jones failed to appear for the rescheduled date, triggering a bench warrant. He was sentenced June 29, 2011 after recapture.
- At sentencing Jones orally moved to withdraw his presentence guilty pleas, claiming innocence and that family pressure/stress caused the plea; the trial court held a hearing and denied the motion.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate nine-year prison sentence, ordered forfeiture, and assessed court costs; the court did not notify Jones at sentencing that failure to pay costs could result in an order to perform community service.
- On appeal Jones argued (1) the trial court abused its discretion denying the presentence motion to withdraw pleas and (2) the court erred (and committed plain error) by imposing costs without the statutorily required community-service notification. The State conceded the notification error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying Jones’ presentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty pleas? | Denial proper because Jones offered only unsubstantiated assertions of innocence, waited until sentencing (over 8 months after plea), and withdrawal would prejudice the State (plea induced dismissal of co-defendant charges). | Jones asserted innocence and that he pleaded because of pressure/stress; sought to avoid increased exposure after failing to appear. | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion—Jones’ claims were bald/self-serving, untimely, and the hearing and consideration were adequate. |
| Did the trial court err by imposing court costs without notifying Jones that failure to pay could result in community service? | Conceded error. | Argued failure to give statutorily required notification violated R.C. 2947.23 and due process. | Reversed in part: notification required under the then-applicable statute; remanded for resentencing on costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ketterer v. Jackson, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010) (presentence motions to withdraw plea should be freely and liberally granted, but are subject to trial-court discretion)
- Xie v. Court of Common Pleas, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (standards and abuse-of-discretion review for Crim.R. 32.1 presentence plea withdrawals)
- Adams v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 (1991) (appellate court should not substitute its judgment for the trial court when reviewing for abuse of discretion)
- McNeil v. State, 146 Ohio App.3d 173 (1st Dist.) (standards/factors considered by appellate courts when reviewing denial of presentence plea-withdrawal motions)
- Lambros v. Maxwell, 44 Ohio App.3d 102 (8th Dist.) (change of heart or mistaken belief is not a reasonable basis to withdraw a plea)
- State v. Smith, 131 Ohio St.3d 297 (2012) (appellate review of failure to provide R.C. 2947.23 community-service notice is proper)