State v. Montgomery, 2017 Ohio 1414

Douglas L. Montgomery was indicted on Domestic Violence (felony), Criminal Damaging (misdemeanor), and Retaliation (felony) in three Ashtabula County cases; plea agreement resolved two cases with dismissal of one charge and an agreed sentence recommendation.
On July 5, 2016, Montgomery executed written pleas and entered guilty pleas in court after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy; he stated he understood his rights, was not coerced, and was satisfied with counsel (“so far, yes”).
The plea hearing elicited differing factual accounts: Montgomery admitted pushing the victim but denied other allegations; the State presented alternative versions including punching and threats.
On September 9, 2016, Montgomery filed presentence Motions to Withdraw his guilty pleas and at the sentencing hearing asserted innocence and that counsel had “talked him into” pleading guilty.
The trial court held a hearing on the motions, considered the plea hearing record and Montgomery’s statements, found no good cause to withdraw, and imposed concurrent prison terms (36 months for Domestic Violence, 18 months for Attempted Retaliation).
Montgomery appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply all Peterseim factors (in particular, by not making a specific finding as to counsel’s competence and by allegedly providing an inadequate hearing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Montgomery’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas under the Peterseim factors	State: trial court properly considered the plea colloquy, allowed Montgomery to state reasons, held a hearing, and gave full and fair consideration; no evidence of coercion or ineffective counsel rebutting the presumption of competence	Montgomery: trial court failed to address whether he had "highly competent" counsel, gave only a limited opportunity to explain, did not fully inquire into claims he was "talked into" pleading (i.e., was "railroaded")	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; Crim.R. 11 colloquy and the withdrawal hearing satisfied Peterseim factors; presumption of counsel competence not overcome; allegations lacked evidentiary support

Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (presentence plea-withdrawal motions should be freely allowed but require a hearing to determine reasonable and legitimate basis)
Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1980) (sets four-factor test for reviewing denial of presentence plea-withdrawal motions)
Bekesz, 75 Ohio App.3d 436 (1991) (lack of any opportunity to present testimony or argument at sentencing constitutes refusal to consider a motion to withdraw)
Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (licensed counsel is generally presumed competent)