State v. Resto
2020 Ohio 4299
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Jonathan M. Resto faced two indictments arising from separate incidents with a former girlfriend, including multiple counts of menacing by stalking and weapons-related specifications.
- Resto initially pleaded not guilty, requested a Spanish translator for video evidence, and rejected an early plea offer.
- On the scheduled trial date (Aug. 26, 2019) Resto accepted a later, substantially reduced plea agreement and entered guilty pleas; the court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and referred Resto for a PSI.
- At the sentencing hearing (Sept. 16, 2019) Resto moved to withdraw his pleas, claiming (1) his attorney threatened to stop representing him unless he took the plea, (2) he needed more time to consider the offer, and (3) he was nonviolent and wanted to present the facts at trial.
- The trial court held a hearing on the motion, found counsel competent, concluded Resto’s claim was a change of heart without a plausible defense and that the motion was untimely, denied withdrawal, and sentenced Resto to two years community control concurrent on each count.
- Defense counsel’s oral request to withdraw was not granted; counsel continued to represent Resto through sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a presentence motion to withdraw guilty pleas | State: Denial proper because Resto had competent counsel, a full Crim.R. 11 colloquy, a complete hearing on the motion, motion was untimely, and Resto offered only a change of heart with no plausible defense | Resto: Plea was involuntary because counsel threatened to withdraw representation if he did not accept the plea; he needed more time to decide; he is nonviolent and wants to present facts at trial | Court: Affirmed. No abuse of discretion — competent counsel, valid Crim.R.11 colloquy, full hearing, motion untimely, and assertions amounted to a change of heart without evidentiary support |
| Whether Resto was unrepresented when the court ruled because counsel moved to withdraw | State: Counsel’s oral request to withdraw was not ruled on and counsel continued to represent Resto; counsel actively participated in sentencing | Resto: Counsel moved to withdraw due to breakdown in communication, so he was effectively unrepresented | Court: Denied — counsel’s withdrawal was not granted and she represented Resto throughout the hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992) (sets standard for plea-withdrawal review and requires a hearing on presentence withdrawal motions)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211, 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist. 1980) (identifies factors supporting a trial court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a plea)