State v. Pudder
2014 Ohio 68
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- December 2012: Portage County grand jury returned a secret indictment charging Trenton Pudder with rape (first-degree felony) for an incident in November 2012; he was arraigned and initially pleaded not guilty.
- February 13, 2013: State amended the charge to one count of gross sexual imposition (third-degree felony); Pudder pleaded guilty and the court accepted the plea, ordering a presentence report.
- April 10, 2013: Before sentencing, Pudder moved under Crim.R. 32.1 to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting newly discovered witnesses (two women from the party) who would exculpate him.
- April 22, 2013: Hearing on the motion; Pudder testified he changed his plea because he was scared and tired of jail, and that he later learned of two witnesses willing to testify for him; the state noted one witness’s name was already in police discovery.
- Trial court denied the motion; on April 29–30, 2013 the court sentenced Pudder to 30 months imprisonment, fined him, and designated him a Tier I sex offender. Pudder appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Pudder’s pre‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea | The State argued the plea was valid, counsel was competent, and Pudder could have told counsel about the alleged witnesses earlier | Pudder argued he discovered new, exculpatory witnesses after his plea and that fear and jail pressure caused the plea; withdrawal should be freely allowed pre‑sentence | Court reversed: under Peterseim and the more detailed Maney factors, the trial court abused its discretion and should have granted the motion to withdraw the plea |
| Whether remaining sentencing claims (court costs, assessment/recoupment, no‑contact order, ineffective assistance as to no‑contact) required relief | State maintained sentencing and conditions were lawful | Pudder challenged imposition of costs/fees without R.C. compliance, no‑contact order, and counsel’s failure to challenge that order | Court found these issues moot in light of reversal of the plea and vacatur of sentence, declined to address them on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (pre‑sentence motions to withdraw pleas should be freely and liberally allowed; Crim.R. 32.1 analysis)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (8th Dist. 1979) (four‑part test for denying pre‑sentence plea withdrawals)
- State v. Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667 (Ohio 1925) (definition and standard for abuse of discretion)
- DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 189 (Ohio 1982) (courts should decide cases on the merits)