State v. Ross
2013 Ohio 3220
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Dustin L. Ross was indicted in two Summit County cases (breaking-and-entering and possessing criminal tools in one; receiving stolen property, possessing criminal tools, and criminal mischief in the other). He pleaded guilty to one felony count in each case pursuant to plea agreements; remaining counts were dismissed.
- At plea hearing the prosecutor recommended concurrent six‑month prison terms; the trial judge expressed reservations about that recommendation. Ross later failed to appear at a joint sentencing hearing.
- Ross was later apprehended and, before sentencing, filed written motions to withdraw his guilty pleas alleging he only accepted the plea because of the six‑month recommendation and asserting innocence of one charge. The trial court denied those motions without a hearing.
- At sentencing the court imposed eleven‑month terms on each conviction to be served consecutively (total 22 months). Ross appealed, raising two issues: (1) whether the plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), and (2) whether the trial court erred by denying his pre‑sentence motions to withdraw the pleas without a hearing.
- The appellate court affirmed the Rule 11 ruling but concluded the trial court erred by denying the pre‑sentence motions without first holding the required Xie hearing; the cause was remanded for a hearing on the motions to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ross) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when accepting guilty pleas | Court’s oral explanation and written plea forms adequately informed Ross of jury, confrontation, compulsory process, and self‑incrimination rights | Plea was not knowing/intelligent/voluntary because the court failed to properly advise him of confrontation, compulsory process, and privilege against self‑incrimination | Affirmed: colloquy + written plea forms sufficiently informed Ross; waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Ross’s pre‑sentence motions to withdraw his guilty pleas without a hearing | Denial without hearing was proper under circumstances | Motion to withdraw was filed pre‑sentence and required a hearing under Xie; denial without a hearing was error | Reversed in part: trial court erred; remanded for a hearing on the motions to withdraw (pre‑sentence Xie hearing required) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (Ohio 2011) (Crim.R. 11 plea‑colloquy must inform defendant of rights and waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (trial court need not recite Rule 11 language verbatim if record shows rights were explained in a manner reasonably intelligible to defendant)
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (Ohio 1992) (pre‑sentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas generally require a hearing; motions should be liberally permitted)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made under federal and state constitutions)