State v. Slater
2014 Ohio 5552
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Kenneth Slater was indicted on ten counts; after plea negotiations he pled guilty to two counts of kidnapping, aggravated robbery (with a three-year firearm specification), felonious assault (with a three-year firearm specification), and having weapons while under disability; remaining counts were dismissed.
- Before sentencing Slater filed a presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming innocence; the State opposed the motion.
- The trial court held a hearing on the motion, denied it, and immediately sentenced Slater to an eight-year prison term.
- At the plea hearing the court complied with Crim.R. 11: Slater was advised of rights, maximum penalties, effect of plea, and stated he was not coerced and was satisfied with counsel.
- At the withdrawal hearing Slater said he felt innocent and was pressured by family to continue to fight; defense counsel acknowledged Slater’s post-plea claim of potential defenses but could not identify specific defenses.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the presentence withdrawal motion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Slater’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea | The State argued the court properly considered Crim.R. 11 compliance, held a full hearing on the motion, and Slater’s claim amounted to a change of heart/family pressure not justifying withdrawal | Slater argued the court failed to properly consider his claim of innocence when denying the motion to withdraw | The court held no abuse of discretion: plea complied with Crim.R. 11, withdrawal hearing was full, and Slater’s claim was a mere change of heart/family pressure insufficient to withdraw a knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently entered plea |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (rule that presentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas should be freely and liberally granted but require hearing and are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (standard for abuse of discretion: decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (factors supporting denial of withdrawal: competent counsel, Crim.R. 11 compliance, full hearing on motion, record shows full and fair consideration)