State v. Owens
2022 Ohio 160
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Terry Owens was indicted for rape and aggravated burglary; on March 3, 2020 he pleaded guilty to rape in exchange for dismissal of the burglary count. The plea form expressly stated there was no agreement as to sentencing and warned Owens of a possible sentence up to 11 years.
- Judge Stephen Bruns accepted the plea (no audio transcript of plea hearing was preserved). On May 6, 2020 the court sentenced Owens to the mandatory eight-year prison term.
- On June 26, 2020 Owens filed a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his guilty plea (post‑sentence), supported by an affidavit and by testimony from his former counsel, Kevin Lennen.
- Lennen testified that, immediately before sentencing, Judge Bruns told him he would go "low end," Lennen relayed that to Owens, and Owens would have sought to withdraw his plea had he known a higher sentence would be imposed. Lennen also testified the judge later apologized and said he had been told the victim was not coping poorly but then heard the victim’s in‑court statement.
- The trial court denied the Crim.R. 32.1 motion, applying the post‑sentence "manifest injustice" standard and, alternatively, evaluating the nine pre‑sentence withdrawal factors and finding withdrawal unjustified. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Owens' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard to apply to post‑sentencing motion to withdraw plea | Trial court should apply the more liberal pre‑sentence standard (fairness/due process) because Owens would have moved to withdraw before sentencing had counsel not relayed the judge’s "low end" comment | Motion filed after sentencing; therefore Crim.R. 32.1 post‑sentence "manifest injustice" standard governs | Appellate court found no error in applying post‑sentence standard and in any event denial was correct under the pre‑sentence factors as well |
| Whether ex parte/comment by judge to counsel ("going low end") or counsel’s relay created an enforceable promise that vitiated the voluntariness of the plea | Lennen’s testimony established that Owens reasonably relied on the judge’s comment conveyed through counsel, producing a legitimate basis to withdraw the plea | No promise was made to induce the plea; plea form and colloquy (and counsel’s own testimony) show Owens understood no sentencing promise existed; plea was knowing and voluntary | Court found no promise induced the plea; plea was knowing/voluntary and no manifest injustice shown |
| Whether Owens established reasonable and legitimate grounds under the nine-factor pre‑sentence test | Owens argued counsel’s representations and Owens’ reliance justified withdrawal | State argued most pre‑sentence factors (competent counsel, full Crim.R.11 warnings, fair hearing, factual record) weighed against withdrawal | Trial court found only 2 of 9 factors favored Owens and denied withdrawal; appellate court deferred to trial court’s credibility and affirmed |
| Res judicata / failure to raise objection at sentencing (concurring opinion) | Owens: could not preserve record of off‑the‑record communications because plea/sentencing exchange was not recorded | Concurrence: res judicata bars this collateral attack because counsel failed to object or move at sentencing; issue could and should have been raised immediately | Majority did not resolve res judicata; concurring judge argued appeal should be dismissed under res judicata but requested supplemental briefing (not decided) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (sets out standard that pre‑sentence motions to withdraw pleas should be liberally granted and the trial court evaluates surrounding circumstances)
- State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977) (post‑sentence withdrawal is allowed only to correct a manifest injustice)
- Beasley v. Black’s Law Dictionary cited in opinion discussions, but controlling standard references: Beasley, 152 Ohio St.3d 470 (2018) (clarifies abuse‑of‑discretion review and defines "arbitrary" and "unreasonable")
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redev. Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (explains the meaning of "unreasonable" for abuse of discretion analysis)