State v. P.P.
2017 Ohio 1120
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant P.P. was indicted on rape, sexual battery, and gross sexual imposition for conduct alleged against his daughter; he pleaded guilty to one count of gross sexual imposition and the state nolled the other counts.
- At the plea hearing the prosecutor recited the victim’s disclosures and appellant’s statements to detectives, including partial admissions and a polygraph finding of deception.
- The trial court accepted the plea after a full Crim.R. 11 colloquy and ordered a presentence investigation; sentencing was scheduled for one month later.
- One day before sentencing appellant moved to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming a newly discovered recollection that would supply a defense (that his thumb, not his penis, entered the victim’s mouth) and arguing the plea was a mistake.
- The state opposed, arguing prejudice to the victim and that the motion was a late “change of heart.” The trial court held a hearing, found the motion premised on a change of heart and credibility problems with the newly asserted defense, and denied withdrawal.
- The trial court sentenced appellant to 18 months; on appeal the court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the pre-sentence motion to withdraw the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (P.P.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea | Allowing withdrawal would prejudice the victim and the public; the plea was knowingly and voluntarily made; the motion is a late tactic/change of heart | Appellant renewed a newly discovered defense and claimed the plea was a mistake, seeking to retract within the pre-sentence window | The court affirmed denial: trial court did not abuse its discretion and reasonably found the motion was a mere change of heart and lacked sufficient credible new defense |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (standard: pre-sentence plea-withdrawal motions are within trial court discretion and should be liberally granted but not automatic)
- State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1st Dist. 1995) (factors for reviewing plea-withdrawal motions)
- State v. Drake, 73 Ohio App.3d 640 (8th Dist. 1991) (a mere change of heart is insufficient to withdraw a plea)
- In re Ohio Criminal Sentencing Statutes Cases, 109 Ohio St.3d 313 (Ohio 2006) (procedural posture noted in relation to appellate review)