State v. Powell
2019 Ohio 346
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Powell was indicted on numerous counts arising from a SWAT standoff and shootout, including multiple attempted murder and felonious assault counts with varying firearm specifications; exposure exceeded 200 years.
- Pursuant to a plea agreement, Powell pled guilty to Count 1 (attempted murder) with attendant firearm and forfeiture specifications and to 11 amended attempted-murder counts with five-year firearm specs; 25 counts were nolled.
- The plea agreement identified a sentencing range of 15–25 years; the trial court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and accepted the plea.
- Powell filed a pro se, presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea asserting stress and that he agreed only to a 15-year sentence; he offered no documentary or testimonial proof.
- The trial court held a hearing on the motion, declined to permit hybrid (simultaneous pro se and counsel) representation but nevertheless heard Powell’s pro se motion, found Powell’s plea knowing and voluntary, and denied the motion.
- The court imposed a 25-year aggregate sentence (consecutive firearm specifications), and Powell appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Powell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Powell’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea | The court properly conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, afforded a hearing, and reasonably found no legitimate basis to withdraw; denial was within discretion | Plea was entered under extreme stress and he only agreed to a 15-year sentence; sought to withdraw before sentencing | No abuse of discretion; motion denied (affirmed) |
| Whether Powell’s plea was knowing and voluntary | Record (Crim.R. 11 colloquy) shows Powell understood rights, consequences, and agreed to 15–25 year range | Claimed misunderstanding and ineffective communication from counsel; invoked attorney-client privilege at hearing | Plea presumed knowing/voluntary; Powell failed to rebut presumption; court credited the colloquy |
| Whether a pro se motion filed while represented by counsel could be entertained | Trial court may refuse hybrid representation; but court allowed hearing and gave full consideration | Powell filed motion pro se despite having counsel and argued merits | Court properly noted hybrid-representation rule, heard motion as accommodation, and still denied due to lack of factual support |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (trial court has discretion to deny pre-sentence plea-withdrawal motion; hearing required to determine reasonable and legitimate basis)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1977) (articulates factors and four-part test for denying pre-sentence plea-withdrawal motions)
- State v. Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (2004) (defendant may not assert right to counsel and right to self-representation simultaneously)
- Thompson v. Keohane, 33 Ohio St.3d 1 (1987) (addresses limits on hybrid representation and right to counsel)
- Barker v. United States, 579 F.2d 1219 (10th Cir. 1978) (abuse-of-discretion standard: reversal requires trial court acted unjustly or unfairly)