State v. Mathis, 2018 Ohio 4541

Robert Mathis was indicted on multiple felonies arising from a May 16, 2016 shooting (seven counts of felonious assault with firearm and gang specs, one count improper discharge, and one count participating in a criminal gang). He pleaded not guilty initially.
Suppression motions on identification and statements were litigated and denied pretrial.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Mathis entered an Alford plea to: one count of felonious assault (with firearm spec), discharging a firearm into a habitation (with firearm spec), and participating in a criminal gang; remaining counts were nolled. The court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and accepted the plea.
Mathis filed a presentence motion to withdraw the Alford plea, claiming emotional distress and poor advice from family; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing, finding only a change of heart and noting potential prejudice to the prosecution.
At sentencing the court imposed consecutive prison terms (three years per second-degree felony plus mandatory consecutive firearm-specification terms) for a total of 11 years, and ordered reimbursement of prosecution, confinement, supervision, and appointed-counsel costs after finding Mathis could or reasonably would be able to pay.
Mathis appealed, raising (1) denial of his motion to withdraw the plea and (2) imposition of various court costs without adequate inquiry into ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion by denying Mathis’s presentence motion to withdraw his Alford plea	State argued denial was proper because plea was voluntary, made after full Crim.R. 11 hearing, counsel competent, and withdrawal would prejudice prosecution	Mathis argued plea was given while emotionally distressed and based on family advice, so he didn’t fully understand rights and consequences	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion — plea was knowing/voluntary, Alford facts supported guilt, only a change of heart shown, and prosecution would be prejudiced
Whether court erred by imposing prosecution costs without considering ability to pay	State argued R.C. 2947.23 requires assessment of prosecution costs in the judgment regardless of ability to pay	Mathis argued court improperly imposed costs of confinement and appointed counsel without sufficient record of his present/future ability to pay	Court affirmed: prosecution costs properly imposed per statute; for confinement and appointed counsel the court made a finding Mathis had or reasonably may have means to pay and record supported that finding

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (permitting a defendant to plead guilty while maintaining innocence when plea is voluntary and supported by strong evidence)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (trial court must hold hearing and exercises sound discretion on presentence plea-withdrawal motions)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1995) (lists factors courts weigh when deciding Crim.R. 32.1 presentence plea-withdrawal motions)