State v. Read-Bates
2020 Ohio 3456
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Read-Bates was indicted in four separate Cuyahoga County cases arising over seven months and pleaded guilty to amended charges in all cases on April 29, 2019.
- The plea resolved multiple counts (including felonious assault, improperly discharging into a habitation, escape, drug offenses, domestic violence, and weapons offenses) and the State nolled remaining charges; aggregate exposure was reduced from a possible 50 years to a 17-year agreed outcome at sentencing.
- On May 14, 2019 Read-Bates filed a presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, claiming he felt pressured and had legitimate defenses; the State produced a jailhouse phone recording suggesting the motion was intended to obtain a better deal.
- The trial court reviewed the plea transcript/Crim.R. 11 colloquy, heard brief argument before sentencing, denied the motion to withdraw, and later imposed consecutive sentences producing a 17-year aggregate term.
- Read-Bates appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to hold an "actual" hearing on his motion to withdraw, and (2) the consecutive sentences relied on improper judicial factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a presentence motion to withdraw the guilty plea | State: plea was knowing, voluntary after a full Crim.R.11 colloquy; motion was a change of heart and the jail call showed an improper motive | Read-Bates: court failed to give an actual/full hearing and did not adequately consider his request to withdraw | Denied. Court did not abuse discretion; Crim.R.11 colloquy, counsel competence, and a sufficient (though brief) hearing supported the denial |
| Whether consecutive sentences were imposed based on improper judicial factfinding in violation of the Sixth Amendment | State: court made the statutory findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) on the record and considered sentencing factors; no unconstitutional factfinding occurred | Read-Bates: consecutive terms relied on facts not alleged in the indictments or admitted by him, amounting to improper judicial factfinding | Denied. Court made the required consecutive-sentence findings (necessity, proportionality, and course-of-conduct/prior-history basis) and the record supported them |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992) (standard: presentence motions to withdraw pleas should be freely allowed but require a hearing to determine reasonable basis)
- Peterseim v. State, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (1980) (factors for denying plea-withdrawal: competent counsel, Crim.R.11 colloquy, hearing on the motion, and full consideration)
- State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial courts must make and incorporate R.C. 2929.14(C)(4) findings for consecutive sentences; no verbatim recitation required)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing maximum penalty must be submitted to a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Sixth Amendment limits on judicial factfinding used to enhance sentences)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (any fact that increases a mandatory minimum is an element that must be found by a jury)